Difference between revisions of "Military-industrial complex" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
 
(39 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
{{Contracted}}
+
{{Ebcompleted}}{{Copyedited}}{{Paid}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{2Copyedited}}
−
[[Image:Apache.jpg|right|thumb|300px|A U.S. AH-64A Apache helicopter]]
+
[[Category:Public]]
−
The term '''''military-industrial complex''''' (MIC), or "Iron Triangle," usually refers to the combination of the [[U.S. armed forces]], arms industry and associated political and commercial interests that grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of [[World War II]] and throughout the [[Cold War]].
+
[[Image:Eisenhower in the Oval Office.jpg|thumb|300px|President [[Dwight Eisenhower]] famously warned the U.S. about the "military–industrial complex" in his farewell address.]]
 +
The term '''''military-industrial complex''''' (MIC) refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, its arms industry, and the associated political and commercial interests that grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of [[World War II]] and throughout the [[Cold War]] to the present.
  
−
The term, which is often used pejoratively, refers to the institutionalized collusion amongst the private defense industry, the military, and the United States government. Such collusion includes practices such as the awarding of no-bid contracts to campaign supporters and the earmarking of disproportionate spending to the military. Many observers worry that this alliance is driven by a quest for profits rather than a pursuit of the public good.  
+
The term, often used pejoratively, refers to the institutionalized collusion among private defense industry, the military services, and the [[United States]] government (especially the Department of Defense). Such collusion includes the awarding of no-bid contracts to campaign supporters and the earmarking of disproportionate spending to the military. Many observers worry this alliance is driven by a quest for profits rather than a pursuit of the public good.  
  
−
In recent decades, the collusion within the "Iron Triangle" has become even more prevelant, putting the United States' economy permanently in "war" mode; instead of building up the military for defense in reponse to armed agression, current government policy guarantees "readiness" by maintaining worldwide bases and spending large sums of money on the latest military technology. Furthering the problem is increased regional dependence on the defense industry for jobs and tax revenues. If the government were to drastically reduce its spending on the military, many Americans working in manufacturing plants around the country would lose their jobs; this reality makes it politically unwise for U.S. Representatives and Senators to vote against unnecessary defense spending.  
+
In recent decades, the collusion has become even more prevalent, putting the United States' economy, some argue, permanently on a "war" footing; instead of defense spending in response to armed aggression, current government policy guarantees "readiness" by maintaining worldwide bases and spending large sums of money on the latest military technology. Furthering the problem is increased regional dependence on the defense industry for jobs and tax revenues. If the U.S. government were to drastically reduce its military spending, many Americans working in defense manufacturing plants around the country would lose their jobs; this reality makes it politically difficult for U.S. congressmen to vote against unnecessary defense spending.
 +
{{toc}}
 +
The increasingly global nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex has led some to charge that the United States is intent on establishing a new, worldwide empire based on military power. Nonetheless, the term MIC can also be applied to similar arrangements elsewhere in the world, both past and present.
  
−
The increasingly global nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex has led some to charge that the United States has established a new, worldwide empire based on its military might.
+
==Origin of the term==
 +
{{readout||right|250px|The term "military-industrial complex" was first used publicly by [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in his farewell address on January 17, 1961}}
 +
The term '''military-industrial complex''' was first used publicly by [[President of the United States]] (and former General of the Army) [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961. Written by speechwriter Malcolm Moos, the speech addressed the growing influence of the defense industry:
  
−
==Origin of the Term==
+
<blockquote>[The] conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence&mdash;economic, political, even spiritual&mdash;is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.</blockquote>
  
−
The term was first used publicly by [[President of the United States]] (and former General of the Army) [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]] in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, [[1961]]. Written by speechwriter Malcolm Moos, the speech addressed the growing influence of the defense industry:
+
<blockquote>In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the '''military-industrial complex.''' The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.</blockquote>
  
−
<blockquote>''A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...''</blockquote>
+
<blockquote>We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.<ref>Dwight D. Eisenhower, [https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/president-dwight-d-eisenhowers-farewell-address President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961)] ''National Archives''. Retrieved September 13, 2023.</ref></blockquote>
  
−
<blockquote>''This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence &mdash; economic, political, even spiritual &mdash; is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.''</blockquote>
+
In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term "military-industrial-congressional complex," indicating the essential role that the U.S. [[Congress]] plays in supporting the defense industry. But the president was said to have chosen to strike the word ''congressional'' in order to avoid offending members of the legislative branch of the federal government.
  
−
<blockquote>''In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the '''military-industrial complex'''. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.''</blockquote>
+
Although the term was originally coined to describe U.S. circumstances, it has been applied to corresponding situations in other countries. It was not unusual to see it used to describe the arms production industries and political structures of the [[Soviet Union]], and it has also been used for other countries with an arms-producing economy, such as Wilhelminian [[Germany]], [[United Kingdom|Britain]], [[France]], and post-Soviet [[Russia]]. The expression is also sometimes applied to the [[European Union]].
  
−
<blockquote>''We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.''</blockquote>
+
==Background in the United States==
−
 
+
===Legal framework===
−
In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term ''military-industrial-congressional complex'', indicating the essential role that the [[U.S. Congress]] plays in supporting the defense industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word ''congressional'' in order to avoid offending members of the legislative branch of the federal government.
+
At its creation, the American [[United States Constitution|Constitution]] was unique for its inherent separation of powers and system of [[checks and balances]] among those powers. The founders feared that one branch or one office would gain a disproportionate amount of power, so systems were put into place to prevent it. Changing times, however, have limited the effectiveness of these systems. For one, when the Constitution was written, the few corporations that existed had little power in American affairs, but today, corporate money has more and more influence in [[Washington, D.C.]] For another, when the founders prepared the document, the [[United States]] was an isolated state protected by two vast oceans with little need to involve itself in world affairs. In light of the relative simplicity of American foreign policy at the time, the Constitution granted the executive branch almost absolute power in that area. In today's globalized world, however, the fact that the executive branch wields enormous power and military might can lead to excessive militarization.
−
 
 
−
Although the term was originally coined to describe U.S. circumstances, it has been applied, by extension, to the corresponding situations in other countries. It was not unusual to see it used to describe the arms production industries and political structures of the Soviet Union, and it has also been used for other countries with an arms-producing economy, such as [[Wilhelminian Germany]], [[United Kingdom|Britain]], [[France]] and post-Soviet Russia. The expression is also sometimes applied to the [[European Union]].
 
−
 
 
−
==Background of the Military-Industrial Complex in the United States==
 
−
 
 
−
===Legal Framework===
 
−
 
 
−
At its creation, the American Constitution was unique for its inherent separation of powers and the system of checks and balances among those powers. The founders feared that one branch or one office would gain a disproportionate amount of power, so systems were put into place to prevent it. Changing times, however, have limited the effectiveness of these systems. For one, when the Constitution was written, the few corporations that existed had little power in American affairs, but, today, corporate money has more and more influence in Washington D.C. For another, when the founders prepared the document, the United States was an isolated state protected by two vast oceans with little need to involve itself in world affairs. In light of the relative simplicity of American foreign policy at the time, the Constitution grants the Executive branch almost absolute power in that area. In today's globalized world, however, the fact that the Executive wields enormous power and military might can lead to excessive militarization.
 
  
 
These issues have contributed to the formation of the American military-industrial complex.
 
These issues have contributed to the formation of the American military-industrial complex.
  
 
===World War II===
 
===World War II===
 +
The pre-December 1941 Lend-Lease deal, which provided aid and equipment to the United Kingdom and preceded the entry of the United States into [[World War II]], led to an unprecedented conversion of civilian industrial power to military production. American factories went into high gear, producing tanks, guns, ammunition, and the other instruments of war at an astonishing rate. Increased industrial production, however, was not the only change in American life brought on by the war. The military participation ratio&mdash;the proportion of people serving in the armed forces&mdash;was 12.2 percent, which was the highest that the U.S. had seen since the [[American Civil War]].<ref name=Johnson>Chalmers Johnson, ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'' (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, ISBN 0805070044).</ref>
  
−
[[Image:Operationtorch.jpg|right|thumb|300px|U.S. Forces landing in North Africa during World War II]]
+
World War II did not, however, cause the shift to a permanent military-industrial complex. For all practical purposes, the military demobilized after the war, and the American economy shifted back to peacetime production. After World War II, political scientist Chalmers Johnson writes, "…the great military production machine briefly came to a halt, people were laid off, and factories were mothballed. Some aircraft manufacturers tried their hands at making aluminum canoes and mobile homes; others simply went out of business."<ref name=Johnson/>
−
The pre-December 1941 Lend-Lease deal, which provided aid and equipment to the United Kingdom, and the eventual entry of the United States into World War II led to an unprecedented conversion of civilian industrial power to military production. American factories went into high gear, producing tanks, guns, ammunition, and the other instruments of war at an astonishing rate. (insert wartime production statistic here). Increased industrial production, however, was not the only change in American life brought on by the war. The military participation ratio&mdash;the proportion of people serving in the armed forces&mdash;was 12.2 percent, which was the highest that the U.S. had seen since the [[American Civil War]].<ref>Johnson, Chalmers ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'', New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, p. 52.</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
World War II did not, however, cause the shift to a permanent military-industrial complex. For all practical purposes, the military demobilized after the war, and the American economy shifted back to peacetime production. After World War II, Chalmers Johnson writes, ". . . the great military production machine briefly came to a halt, people were laid off, and factories were mothballed. Some aircraft manufacturers tried their hands at making aluminum canoes and mobile homes; others simply went out of business."<ref>Johnson, Chalmers ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'', New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, p. 55.</ref>
 
  
 
===Cold War/Korean War===
 
===Cold War/Korean War===
 +
The U.S. military-industrial complex as it is known today really began with the onset of the [[Cold War]] between the [[United States]] and the [[Soviet Union]]. When North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, the previously "cold" war turned hot, and the [[Harry S. Truman|Truman]] administration decided to back its previously announced policy of containment with military action. That conflict provided the impetus for massive increases in the U.S. defense budget, though little was earmarked to fund the actual fighting. Rather, "most of the money went into nuclear weapons development and the stocking of the massive Cold War garrisons then being built in Britain, [West] Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea."<ref name=Johnson/> In simple numbers (2002 purchasing power), "defense spending rose from about $150 billion in 1950…to just under $500 billion in 1953," a staggering increase of over 200 percent.<ref name=Johnson/>
  
−
The U.S. military-industrial complex as it is known today truly began with the onset of the [[Cold War]] between the United States and the Soviet Union. When the North Koreans invaded South Korea, the previously "cold" war turned hot, and the Truman administration decided to back its previously announced policy of Containment with military action. That conflict provided the impetus for massive increases in the U.S. defense budget, though little was earmarked to fund the actual fighting. Rather, "most of the money went into nuclear weapons development and the stocking of the massive [[Cold War]] garrisons then being built in Britain, [West] Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea."<ref>Johnson, Chalmers ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'', New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, p. 56.</ref> In simple numbers (2002 purchasing power), "defense spending rose from about $150 billion in 1950 . . . to just under $500 billion in 1953," a staggering increase of over 200 percent.<ref>Johnson, Chalmers ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'', New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, p. 55.</ref>
+
The public's intense fear of the Soviet Union, and a now unleashed armaments industry, inflicted intense pressure on politicians to "do something" to protect Americans from the Soviets. In the 1960 presidential race, for example, Democratic candidate [[John F. Kennedy]] claimed that the U.S. had fallen behind the Soviets in terms of military readiness, an issue that he had previously raised in a 1958 speech to the Senate. The charge was mainly for political opportunism; officials in the Eisenhower administration had images taken by U-2 spy-planes that confirmed American superiority in both missile numbers and technology, but the president worried that publicizing the data would lead to the Soviets ramping up their own weapons programs.  
−
 
 
−
The public's intense fear of the Soviet Union, and a now unleashed armaments industry, inflicted intense pressure on politicians to "do something" to protect Americans from the Soviets. In the 1960 Presidential race, for example, [[John F. Kennedy]] claimed that the U.S. had fallen behind the Soviets in terms of military readiness, an issue that he had previously raised in a 1958 speech to the Senate:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote> "…the opportunity to take political advantage of what seemed like a major failing on the part of the Eisenhower administration was irresistable [for Kennedy]. In August 1958, Jack spoke in the Senate about a fast-approaching 'dangerous period' when we would suffer a 'gap' or a 'missile-lag period'&mdash;a time 'in which our own offensive and defensive missile capabilities will lag so far behind those of the Soviets as to place us in a position of grave peril.' The gap was the result of a 'complacency' that put 'fiscal security ahead of national security.'"<ref>Dallek, Robert (2003). ''An Unfinished Life : John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963''. New York: Brown, Little. p. 224</ref></blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
The charge was mainly for political opportunism; officials in the Eisenhower administration had images taken by U2 spyplanes that confirmed American superiority in both missile numbers and technology, but the President worried that publicizing the data would lead to the Soviets ramping up their own weapons programs.  
 
  
−
During the [[Cold War]] and immediately after, defense spending sharply peaked upwards four times times: first, during the Korean war; second, during the Vietname war; third, during Ronald Reagan's presidency; and fourth, in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001. During those periods, defense spending per year often exeeded $400 billion.<ref>Johnson, Chalmers ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'', New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, p. 56.</ref> The perceived need for military readiness during the [[Cold War]] created a new, permanent and powerful defense industry. That industry quickly became so entrenched in the American consciousness that it became normal for the government to spend large sums of money on defense during peacetime.
+
During the Cold War and immediately after, defense spending sharply peaked upwards four times: First, during the [[Korean War]]; second, during the [[Vietnam War]]; third, during [[Ronald Reagan]]'s presidency; and fourth, in response to the [[September 11 attacks]] in 2001. During those periods, defense spending per year often exceeded $400 billion.<ref name=Johnson/> The perceived need for military readiness during the Cold War created a new, permanent and powerful defense industry. That industry quickly became so entrenched in the American consciousness that it became normal for the government to spend large sums of money on defense during peacetime.
  
 
===Vietnam War===
 
===Vietnam War===
 +
[[Image:Apache.jpg|right|thumb|350px|A U.S. AH-64A Apache helicopter]]
 +
The long duration of the [[Vietnam War]] required that the United States establish bases and semi-permanent infrastructure in [[Vietnam]] for the support of its troops. To do this, the U.S. government largely turned to private contractors, some of which maintained extensive ties to U.S. politicians.
  
−
The long duration of the Vietnam War required that the United States establish bases and semi-permanent infrastructure in Vietnam for the support of its troops. To do this, the U.S. government largely turned to private contractors such as Kellogg, Brown & Root, a company that maintained extensive ties to U.S. politicians.
+
Often, during the Vietnam-era, American citizens supported high defense spending because it was required for the struggle against [[communism]]. Also, increased military spending brought economic prosperity to regions of the United States that supported it. California, for example, led the nation in military contracts and also featured the military bases to match.
−
[[Image:Vietnamchopper.jpg|right|thumb|300px|U.S. helicopters in Vietnam during the war]]
 
−
 
 
−
The war in Vietnam provided ample government work for Brown & Root. The company became part of a consortium of four companies that built about eighty-five per cent of the infrastructure needed by the Army during the Vietnam War; one contract with the U.S. Navy was worth $380 million. Domestically, during the war, the company also benefited greatly from its connections with President [Lyndon Baines Johnson|Johnson], obtaining contracts for huge government construction projects. Republicans in Congress claimed that these contracts were a reward for large contributions to Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign.<ref>"Halliburton Deals Recall Vietnam-era Controversy" [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1569483]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
At the height of the war resistance movement of the 1960s, Brown & Root was derided as "Burn & Loot" by protesters and soldiers; such critics charged that Brown & Root had become an example of the developing U.S. military-industrial complex.<ref>"Halliburton Deals Recall Vietnam-era Controversy" [http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1569483]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Often, during the Vietnam-era, American citizens supported the military-industrial complex because it was required the struggle against the Communist menance. Also, the increased military spending brought economic prosperity to regions of the United States that supported it. California, for example, led the nation in military contracts and also featured the military bases to match.<ref>[http://www.museumca.org/ Oakland Museum of California], [http://www.museumca.org/picturethis/index.html "Picture this: Vietnam War/Cold War era"]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==Current Issues==
 
−
 
 
−
Technological advances in weaponry and the required rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure after the 2003 American invasion have further entrenched the U.S. military-industrial complex. One corporation in particular, Halliburton Energy Services, has become instrumental in the Iraqi war effort.
 
−
 
 
−
===Halliburton===
 
−
 
 
−
Halliburton Energy Services (NYSE HAL) is a multinational corporation with operations in over 120 countries, and is based in Houston, Texas. Halliburton operates two major business segments:  The Energy  Services Group, which provides technical products and services for oil and gas exploration and production, and Kellogg, Brown and Root (KBR), which is a major construction company that now specializes in the building of refineries, oil fields, pipelines, and chemical plants. 2005 revenues were $20.99 billion USD, and the company employs over 106,000 people worldwide.
 
−
 
 
−
====History/Lyndon Johnson Ties====
 
−
 
 
−
Brown and Root was founded in Texas in 1919 by two brothers, George and Herman Brown, with money from their brother-in-law, Dan Root.  The company began its operations by supervising the building of warships for the post-World War I United States Navy.
 
−
 
 
−
One of its first large-scale projects, according to the book ''Cadillac Desert'', was to build a dam on the Colorado River near Austin, Texas during the [[Great Depression]] of the 1930s.  For assistance in federal payments, the company turned to the local Congressman and future President, [[Lyndon Baines Johnson]]. In return, they  contributed funds used to "steal" the 1948 Senate race from the popular Coke R. Stevenson.<ref>Bryce, Robert. "[http://www.texasobserver.org/showArticle.asp?ArticleID=731 The Candidate from Brown and Root.]" ''Texas Observer'', October 6, 2000.</ref> The relationship between the Congressman and Brown & Root would continue for decades.
 
−
 
 
−
During [[World War II]], Brown & Root built the Naval Air Station at Corpus Christi and a series of warships for the U.S. Government. In 1947, Brown & Root built one of the world's first offshore oil drilling platforms, perhaps signaling a shift of some of its business to the newly developing energy industry.Following the death of Herman Brown, [[Halliburton]] acquired Brown & Root in December 1962.
 
−
 
 
−
====Activities in Afghanistan====
 
−
 
 
−
KBR was awarded a $100 million contract in 2002 to build a new U.S. embassy in Kabul, [[Afghanistan]], from the State Department.
 
−
 
 
−
KBR has also been awarded 15 Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) task orders worth more than $216 million for work under Operation Enduring Freedom, the military name for operations in Afghanistan. These include establishing base camps at Kandahar and Bagram Air Base and training foreign troops from the Republic of Georgia.
 
−
 
 
−
====The Iraq War (2003)====
 
−
 
 
−
Today, KBR employs over 30,000 men and women in Iraq. Halliburton's work in Iraq is diverse and complicated. In addition to troop support, Halliburton also provides air traffic control support, produces 74 million gallons of water a month for consumption, hygiene and laundry, deploys as many as 700 trucks a day to deliver essentials to American forces, and provides firefighter and crash-rescue services, as well as working to restore Iraqi oil infrastructure.
 
−
 
 
−
The Defense Contract Auditing Agency estimates that KBR has received 52% of the approximately $25 billion paid out by the Pentagon to private contractors in Iraq. <ref>Chatterjee, Pratap [http://www.corpwatch.org CorpWatch.org] [http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=12476 "Halliburton Hearing Unearths New Abuse"]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
====Controversy====
 
−
 
 
−
The United States army hired Kellogg, Brown and Root to provide housing for approximately 100,000 soldiers in Iraq in a contract worth $200 million, based on a long-term contract signed in December 2001 under the LOGCAP. Other LOGCAP orders have included a pre-invasion order to repair oil facilities in Iraq; $28.2 million to build prisoner-of-war camps; and $40.8 million to accommodate the Iraqi Survey Group, which was deployed after the war to find hidden weapons of mass destruction.
 
−
 
 
−
In the competition for the current LOGCAP contract, the Army Corps of Engineers asked competitors to develop a contingency plan for extinguishing oil well fires in Iraq. The Army chose KBR's plan in November 2001, though it remains classified. On March 24, 2003, the Army announced publicly that KBR had been awarded five task orders in Iraq potentially worth $7 billion to implement the plan. One of the task orders, obtained by the Center for Public Integrity, required KBR to "procure, import and deliver" fuels to Iraq. In fact, the contract was awarded more than two weeks earlier, without submission for public bids or congressional notification. In their response to Congressional inquiries, Army officials said they determined that extinguishing oil fires fell under the range of services provided under LOGCAP, meaning that KBR could deploy quickly and without additional security clearances. They also said that the contract's classified status prevented open bidding.
 
−
 
 
−
The Army's actions came under fire from Congressman Henry Waxman, who, along with John Dingell, asked the General Accounting Office&mdash;the investigative arm of Congress&mdash;to investigate whether the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Pentagon were circumventing government contracting procedures and favoring companies with ties to the Bush administration. They also accused KBR of inflating prices for importing gasoline into Iraq. In June 2003, the Army announced that it would replace KBR's oil-infrastructure contract with two public-bid contracts worth a maximum total of $1 billion to be awarded in October. However, the Army announced in October it would expand the contract ceiling to $2 billion and the solicitation period to December. As of October 16 2003, KBR had performed nearly $1.6 billion worth of work.
 
−
 
 
−
====Ties to Dick Cheney====
 
−
 
 
−
[[Image:Cheneyportrait.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Former chairman and CEO of Halliburton and current Vice President Dick Cheney]]
 
−
In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the [[2003 Iraq War]] and the company's ties to US Vice President [[Dick Cheney]]. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $20 million. As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.<ref>FactCheck.org, September 30 [http://www.factcheck.org/article261.htm "Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton"]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
Concerns have been raised regarding the possible [[conflict of interest]] resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an [[insurance policy]] that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes.<ref>FactCheck.org, September 30 [http://www.factcheck.org/article261.htm "Kerry Ad Falsely Accuses Cheney on Halliburton" ]</ref> He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities.
 
−
 
 
−
Political opponents accuse Cheney of supporting the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]] to provide work to KBR under contingency contracts that would enrich his business associates. The contract that KBR won from the US Army in a competitive bid process is referred to as LOGCAP (Logistical Civilian Augmentation Program) and is managed by the US Army.  (KBR won the first LOGCAP contract, Dyncorp the second, and KBR the current one, dubbed "LOGCAP III".)  It is a contingency based contract which is invoked at the convenience of the US Army; the orders under the contract are not competitively bid (as the overall contract was) and thus the reason for the confusion.  When the contract was invoked during the Balkans crisis there was no controversy and very litte scrutiny of the contract.  KBR performed under this agreement in the Balkans for over 10 years and still maintains a LOGCAP presence there to this day.
 
−
 
 
−
====Allegations of Fraud====
 
−
 
 
−
Allegations of fraud by Halliburton, specifically with regard to its operations in Iraq, have persisted since before the [[2003 Iraq War]]. The associations between Cheney and Halliburton had led many to speculate with regard to improprieties and billing discrepencies.
 
−
 
 
−
On June 27, 2005, the Democratic Party held a public committee hearing at which former civilian employees based in or administering operations in Iraq, testified to specific instances  of waste, fraud, and other abuses and irregularities by Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary.
 
  
−
Former Chief Contracting Officer of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bunny Greenhouse, who provided the bulk of testimony, spoke for several minutes about her involvement in the evaluation and crafting of government Army contracts, and explained how her superiors undermined and dismissed her concerns of illegal business practices. She worried about the non-competitive nature of the RIO contract that was repeatedly awarded to KBR.
+
==Contemporary issues==
 +
Technological advances in weaponry and the required rebuilding of [[Iraq]]i infrastructure after the 2003 war enhanced concern over the U.S. military-industrial complex in the eyes of some. One corporation in particular, Halliburton Energy Services, had a high profile in the Iraqi war effort. Halliburton ([[New York Stock Exchange|NYSE]]: HAL) is a multinational corporation with operations in over 120 countries, and based in Houston, [[Texas]], and has ties to former U.S. Vice President [[Dick Cheney]].
  
−
Rory Mayberry, former Food Program Manager for KBR, testified via video from Iraq, saying that KBR routinely sold expired food rations to the Army. He testified that KBR had deliberately falsifed the number of meals they prepared and then submitted false claims for reimbursement. Mayberry also said that serving expired food rations was "an everyday occurrence, sometimes every meal." He also explained that Halliburton systematically overcharged for the number of meals as well, saying, "they were charging for 20,000 meals and they were only serving 10,000 meals."
+
==Preventing conflicts of interest, corruption, and collusion==
−
 
+
In an era of increasing militarization and congressional corruption, serious reform is necessary. After the [[WorldCom]] and [[Enron]] scandals of the early 2000s, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation to better regulate business and accounting practices. That act, however, does not address the military-industrial complex specifically and how it can adversely affect American society. Reform will have to come in the form of legislation specifically designed to define the legal relationship between private defense contractors and the government and also the role that American foreign policy plays in the world.
−
Halliburton and its subcontractors contend that billing discrepencies for the dining facilities stemmed from interpretive differences in their contracts, which required them to be prepared to serve a minimum number of meals per day. When they billed for these minimum numbers however, the DCAA countered that they should only be required to pay for meals served. Of the over $200 million in question, $51 million was eventually retained by the U.S. Army Field Support Command.
 
−
 
 
−
Mayberry also claimed would-be whistleblowers were threatened "to be sent to Fallujah" and other "places under fire" if they talked to media or governmental oversight officials. In 2003 and 2004, Fallujah had been well known as dangerous for foreign troops and civilians. "I personally was sent to Fallujah for three weeks. The manager told me that I was being sent away until the auditors were gone, because I had talked to the auditors," Mayberry said. "The threat of being sent to a camp under fire was their way of keeping us quiet. The employees who talked to auditors were sent to camps under more fire than other camps, and Camp Anaconda." This report led Senator Dorgan and others to voice considerable outrage. <ref>[http://www.halliburtonwatch.org Halliburton Watch], [http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/dpc_hearing062705.html "Whistleblowers, auditors describe Halliburton's rip-off of U.S. Taxpayers"]</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
===Congressional Corruption===
 
−
 
 
−
The vast sums of money spent throughout the military-industrial complex have led to increased competition among Representatives to shift defense projects to their home districts. Sometimes, this competition turns to outright corruption and bribery.
 
−
 
 
−
====Randy "Duke" Cunningham====
 
−
[[Image:Duke.jpg|frame|right|Former Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham in January 2005]]
 
−
 
 
−
Randall "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican member of the House of Representatives from California's 50th Congressional, was found guilty of accepting at least $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors in exchange for supporting their projects on the important House Committee on Appropriations. During his trial, documents and testimony revealed that Cunningham had accepted the following items/payments:
 
−
 
 
−
<blockquote>
 
−
*A Rolls-Royce, which he parked at the Capitol building while "legislating"
 
−
*The use of a $140,000 boat, which had been renamed "Duke-Stir" after the Congressman
 
−
*Checks for $525,000 and $100,000
 
−
*Expensive antiques, including Persian and Indian rugs, a $25,000 Victorian china hutch, and silver candlesticks worth over $5,000
 
−
*$700,000 over market value for his home to fund the purchase of a new, $2.6 million house
 
−
</blockquote>
 
−
 
 
−
Cunningham resigned his seat on in November 2005 after pleading guilty to the various charges against him, but the case goes further than that. Related to their dealings with the same contractors, the high school friend of one of the guilty defense contractors, former No. 3 at the [[Central Intelligence Agency|CIA]] Kyle Foggo, and the head of the House Committee on Appropriations, Jerry Lewis, are under investigation as well.<ref>Bachrach, Judy. "Washington Babylon," ''Vanity Fair'', August 2006 p. 96</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
==Preventing Conflicts of Interest, Corruption, and Collusion==
 
−
 
 
−
In an era of increasing militarization and Congressional corruption, serious reform is necessary. After the WorldCom and Enron scandals of the early 2000's, Congress passed the Sarbanes/Oxley legislation to better regulate business and accounting practices. That act, however, does not address the military-industrial complex specifically and how it can adversely affect American society. Reform must come in the form of legislation specifically designed to define the legal relationship between private defense contractors and the government and also the role that American foreign policy should play in the world.
 
  
 
Legislation could specifically address:
 
Legislation could specifically address:
  
−
*Conflict of interests in campaign financing and awarding of contracts.
+
*Conflict of interests in campaign financing and awarding of contracts
 
*The award of contracts through votes where individual representatives and senators are identified (not committees)
 
*The award of contracts through votes where individual representatives and senators are identified (not committees)
−
*Disclosure and transparency at a level which the IRS requires of non-profits.
+
*Disclosure and transparency at a level which the IRS requires of non-profits
−
*Competitive bidding of contracts, to include bids from corporations from other countries when on foreign soil.
+
*Competitive bidding of contracts, to include bids from corporations from other countries when on foreign soil
−
*Disentangle foreign aid from conditions that dictate suppliers and products for which aid is given.
+
*Disentangle foreign aid from conditions that dictate suppliers and products for which aid is given
−
*Principles of foreign policy consistent with domestic policy.
+
*Principles of foreign policy consistent with domestic policy
−
*Limitation of Executive power in managing foreign policy
+
*Limitation of executive power in management of foreign policy
−
 
 
−
==See also==
 
−
 
 
−
*''War is a Racket'' (book by Smedley Butler)
 
−
*''Why We Fight'' (documentary by Eugene Jarecki)
 
−
*[[Corporatism]]
 
−
*[[Militarism]]
 
−
*Prison-industrial complex
 
−
 
 
−
== Endnotes ==
 
  
 +
== Notes ==
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
−
==Further Reading==
+
==References==
−
 
+
* Chambers, John Whiteclay (ed.). ''The Oxford Companion to American Military History''. Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0195071980
−
*Dallek, Robert (2003). ''An Unfinished Life : John F. Kennedy, 1917 - 1963''. New York: Brown, Little. ISBN 0316172383
+
*Dallek, Robert. ''An Unfinished Life : John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963.'' New York: Brown, Little, 2003. ISBN 0316172383
−
*Eisenhower, Dwight D. ''Public Papers of the Presidents'', 1035-40. 1960.
+
*Eisenhower, Dwight D. ''Public Papers of the Presidents.'' National Archives of the U.S / GPO, 1959.
−
*"Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the Nation."  In ''The Annals of America''. Vol. 18.  ''1961-1968: The Burdens of World Power'', 1-5.  Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1968.
+
*Gottlieb, Sanford. ''Defense Addition: Can America Kick the Habit?'' Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0813331201
−
*Gottlieb, Sanford. ''Defense Addition: Can America Kick the Habit?'', Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997.
+
*Hartung, William D. [http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/40209730?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21105050420633 "Eisenhower's Warning: The Military-Industrial Complex Forty Years Later."] ''World Policy Journal'' 18(1). Retrieved October 27, 2014.
−
*Hartung, William D. [http://www.worldpolicy.org/journal/hartung01.html "Eisenhower's Warning: The Military-Industrial Complex Forty Years Later."] ''World Policy Journal'' 18, no. 1 (Spring 2001).
+
*Johnson, Chalmers. ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic.'' New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004. ISBN 0805070044
−
*Johnson, Chalmers ''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic'', New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004.
+
*Nieburg, H. L. ''In the Name of Science.'' Quadrangle Books, 1970. {{ASIN|B00005W63K}}
−
*Kurth, James.  "Military-Industrial Complex."  In ''The Oxford Companion to American Military History'', ed. John Whiteclay Chambers II, 440-42.  Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
+
*Singer, P. W. ''Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry.'' Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0801474361
−
*Nelson, Lars-Erik. "Military-Industrial Man." In ''New York Review of Books'' 47, no. 20 (Dec. 21, 2000): 6.
 
−
*Nieburg, H. L. ''In the Name of Science'', Quadrangle Books, 1970
 
−
*Singer, P.W. ''Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry.'' Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003.
 
−
 
 
−
==External links==
 
−
 
 
−
===General===
 
−
*[http://schema-root.org/commerce/corporation/military/ Schema-root.org: military industry] 38 military industry topics, each with a current news feed
 
−
*[http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?ind=D Open Secrets: Top Defense Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties] database
 
−
*[http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm War Resisters: Piechart and info on defense spending]
 
−
*[http://www.nationalpriorities.org/auxiliary/interactivetaxchart/taxchart.html National priorities project chart showing how your federal income tax is spent]
 
−
*[http://www.seek2know.net/money.html Quotes on Money and Banking and Militarism]
 
−
*[http://www.watir.org/res/mil_indust_complex.htm Flows of Money and Patronage] from [http://www.watir.org/ Washington Truth in Recruiting]
 
−
*[http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/ Why We Fight : A Film by Eugene Jarecki exploring the effects of the Military Industrial Complex]
 
−
 
 
−
===Halliburton===
 
  
−
* [http://www.halliburton.com/ Halliburton] official corporate site
 
−
*[http://soc.hfac.uh.edu/artman/publish/article_375.shtml World Internet News: "Big Oil Looking for a Government Handout," April 2006].
 
−
* [http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HAL HAL: Summary for HALLIBURTON HLDG CO - Yahoo! Finance]
 
−
* [http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2003/07/we_455_01.html The World According to Halliburton]
 
−
* [http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ Halliburton Watch]
 
−
* [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Halliburton Halliburton] at [[SourceWatch]]
 
−
* [http://www.independent-media.tv/gtheme.cfm?ftheme_id=35  Independent Media TV - Dick Cheney and Halliburton] media watch
 
−
* [http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/HH/doh8.html ''Halliburton Company''] from ''The Handbook of Texas''
 
−
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30209-2004Sep17.html ''Halliburton Is a Handy Target for Democrats''] from [[The Washington Post]] [[18 September]] [[2004]]
 
−
* [http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/17/1431237 ''The Halliburton Agenda: The Politics of Oil and Money''] from [[Democracy Now]] [[17 May]] [[2004]]
 
−
* [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/articles/halliburtonprimer.html ''A Halliburton Primer''] from [[The Washington Post]] [[11 July]] [[2002]]
 
−
* [http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2005/s299.html A Bill to Disclose Halliburton's Business with Iran]
 
−
*[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4177832.stm ''"Halliburton worker'' (Glenn Allen Powell)'' admits bribes"'' with KBR @ BBC News]
 
−
*[http://usconservatives.about.com/od/iraq/p/halliburton.htm What's Up With Cheney And Halliburton?] from About.com Conservative Politics
 
−
*[http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/ Frontline: Private Warriors] PBS special on Halliburton, KBR and other contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan
 
 
[[Category:Military]]
 
[[Category:Military]]
−
[[Category:Political economy]]
+
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
−
[[Category:Social justice]]
 
  
 
{{Credit3|Military-industrial_complex|59924572|Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root|56668850|Halliburton|59577083}}
 
{{Credit3|Military-industrial_complex|59924572|Kellogg,_Brown_and_Root|56668850|Halliburton|59577083}}

Latest revision as of 16:24, 13 September 2023


President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned the U.S. about the "military–industrial complex" in his farewell address.

The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to the combination of the U.S. armed forces, its arms industry, and the associated political and commercial interests that grew rapidly in scale and influence in the wake of World War II and throughout the Cold War to the present.

The term, often used pejoratively, refers to the institutionalized collusion among private defense industry, the military services, and the United States government (especially the Department of Defense). Such collusion includes the awarding of no-bid contracts to campaign supporters and the earmarking of disproportionate spending to the military. Many observers worry this alliance is driven by a quest for profits rather than a pursuit of the public good.

In recent decades, the collusion has become even more prevalent, putting the United States' economy, some argue, permanently on a "war" footing; instead of defense spending in response to armed aggression, current government policy guarantees "readiness" by maintaining worldwide bases and spending large sums of money on the latest military technology. Furthering the problem is increased regional dependence on the defense industry for jobs and tax revenues. If the U.S. government were to drastically reduce its military spending, many Americans working in defense manufacturing plants around the country would lose their jobs; this reality makes it politically difficult for U.S. congressmen to vote against unnecessary defense spending.

The increasingly global nature of the U.S. military-industrial complex has led some to charge that the United States is intent on establishing a new, worldwide empire based on military power. Nonetheless, the term MIC can also be applied to similar arrangements elsewhere in the world, both past and present.

Origin of the term

Did you know?
The term "military-industrial complex" was first used publicly by Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address on January 17, 1961

The term military-industrial complex was first used publicly by President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation on January 17, 1961. Written by speechwriter Malcolm Moos, the speech addressed the growing influence of the defense industry:

[The] conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence—economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.[1]

In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term "military-industrial-congressional complex," indicating the essential role that the U.S. Congress plays in supporting the defense industry. But the president was said to have chosen to strike the word congressional in order to avoid offending members of the legislative branch of the federal government.

Although the term was originally coined to describe U.S. circumstances, it has been applied to corresponding situations in other countries. It was not unusual to see it used to describe the arms production industries and political structures of the Soviet Union, and it has also been used for other countries with an arms-producing economy, such as Wilhelminian Germany, Britain, France, and post-Soviet Russia. The expression is also sometimes applied to the European Union.

Background in the United States

Legal framework

At its creation, the American Constitution was unique for its inherent separation of powers and system of checks and balances among those powers. The founders feared that one branch or one office would gain a disproportionate amount of power, so systems were put into place to prevent it. Changing times, however, have limited the effectiveness of these systems. For one, when the Constitution was written, the few corporations that existed had little power in American affairs, but today, corporate money has more and more influence in Washington, D.C. For another, when the founders prepared the document, the United States was an isolated state protected by two vast oceans with little need to involve itself in world affairs. In light of the relative simplicity of American foreign policy at the time, the Constitution granted the executive branch almost absolute power in that area. In today's globalized world, however, the fact that the executive branch wields enormous power and military might can lead to excessive militarization.

These issues have contributed to the formation of the American military-industrial complex.

World War II

The pre-December 1941 Lend-Lease deal, which provided aid and equipment to the United Kingdom and preceded the entry of the United States into World War II, led to an unprecedented conversion of civilian industrial power to military production. American factories went into high gear, producing tanks, guns, ammunition, and the other instruments of war at an astonishing rate. Increased industrial production, however, was not the only change in American life brought on by the war. The military participation ratio—the proportion of people serving in the armed forces—was 12.2 percent, which was the highest that the U.S. had seen since the American Civil War.[2]

World War II did not, however, cause the shift to a permanent military-industrial complex. For all practical purposes, the military demobilized after the war, and the American economy shifted back to peacetime production. After World War II, political scientist Chalmers Johnson writes, "…the great military production machine briefly came to a halt, people were laid off, and factories were mothballed. Some aircraft manufacturers tried their hands at making aluminum canoes and mobile homes; others simply went out of business."[2]

Cold War/Korean War

The U.S. military-industrial complex as it is known today really began with the onset of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. When North Korea invaded South Korea in 1950, the previously "cold" war turned hot, and the Truman administration decided to back its previously announced policy of containment with military action. That conflict provided the impetus for massive increases in the U.S. defense budget, though little was earmarked to fund the actual fighting. Rather, "most of the money went into nuclear weapons development and the stocking of the massive Cold War garrisons then being built in Britain, [West] Germany, Italy, Japan, and South Korea."[2] In simple numbers (2002 purchasing power), "defense spending rose from about $150 billion in 1950…to just under $500 billion in 1953," a staggering increase of over 200 percent.[2]

The public's intense fear of the Soviet Union, and a now unleashed armaments industry, inflicted intense pressure on politicians to "do something" to protect Americans from the Soviets. In the 1960 presidential race, for example, Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy claimed that the U.S. had fallen behind the Soviets in terms of military readiness, an issue that he had previously raised in a 1958 speech to the Senate. The charge was mainly for political opportunism; officials in the Eisenhower administration had images taken by U-2 spy-planes that confirmed American superiority in both missile numbers and technology, but the president worried that publicizing the data would lead to the Soviets ramping up their own weapons programs.

During the Cold War and immediately after, defense spending sharply peaked upwards four times: First, during the Korean War; second, during the Vietnam War; third, during Ronald Reagan's presidency; and fourth, in response to the September 11 attacks in 2001. During those periods, defense spending per year often exceeded $400 billion.[2] The perceived need for military readiness during the Cold War created a new, permanent and powerful defense industry. That industry quickly became so entrenched in the American consciousness that it became normal for the government to spend large sums of money on defense during peacetime.

Vietnam War

A U.S. AH-64A Apache helicopter

The long duration of the Vietnam War required that the United States establish bases and semi-permanent infrastructure in Vietnam for the support of its troops. To do this, the U.S. government largely turned to private contractors, some of which maintained extensive ties to U.S. politicians.

Often, during the Vietnam-era, American citizens supported high defense spending because it was required for the struggle against communism. Also, increased military spending brought economic prosperity to regions of the United States that supported it. California, for example, led the nation in military contracts and also featured the military bases to match.

Contemporary issues

Technological advances in weaponry and the required rebuilding of Iraqi infrastructure after the 2003 war enhanced concern over the U.S. military-industrial complex in the eyes of some. One corporation in particular, Halliburton Energy Services, had a high profile in the Iraqi war effort. Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) is a multinational corporation with operations in over 120 countries, and based in Houston, Texas, and has ties to former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney.

Preventing conflicts of interest, corruption, and collusion

In an era of increasing militarization and congressional corruption, serious reform is necessary. After the WorldCom and Enron scandals of the early 2000s, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation to better regulate business and accounting practices. That act, however, does not address the military-industrial complex specifically and how it can adversely affect American society. Reform will have to come in the form of legislation specifically designed to define the legal relationship between private defense contractors and the government and also the role that American foreign policy plays in the world.

Legislation could specifically address:

  • Conflict of interests in campaign financing and awarding of contracts
  • The award of contracts through votes where individual representatives and senators are identified (not committees)
  • Disclosure and transparency at a level which the IRS requires of non-profits
  • Competitive bidding of contracts, to include bids from corporations from other countries when on foreign soil
  • Disentangle foreign aid from conditions that dictate suppliers and products for which aid is given
  • Principles of foreign policy consistent with domestic policy
  • Limitation of executive power in management of foreign policy

Notes

  1. ↑ Dwight D. Eisenhower, President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Farewell Address (1961) National Archives. Retrieved September 13, 2023.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic (New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, ISBN 0805070044).

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Chambers, John Whiteclay (ed.). The Oxford Companion to American Military History. Oxford University Press, 2000. ISBN 0195071980
  • Dallek, Robert. An Unfinished Life : John F. Kennedy, 1917–1963. New York: Brown, Little, 2003. ISBN 0316172383
  • Eisenhower, Dwight D. Public Papers of the Presidents. National Archives of the U.S / GPO, 1959.
  • Gottlieb, Sanford. Defense Addition: Can America Kick the Habit? Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997. ISBN 978-0813331201
  • Hartung, William D. "Eisenhower's Warning: The Military-Industrial Complex Forty Years Later." World Policy Journal 18(1). Retrieved October 27, 2014.
  • Johnson, Chalmers. The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004. ISBN 0805070044
  • Nieburg, H. L. In the Name of Science. Quadrangle Books, 1970. ASIN B00005W63K
  • Singer, P. W. Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007. ISBN 978-0801474361

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.

Retrieved from https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/p/index.php?title=Military-industrial_complex&oldid=1122199

Content is available under Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details.
Copyright Logo
Powered by MediaWiki