The U.S. Military-Industrial Complex: The True Victors of War
In his final presidential speech, Dwight D. Eisenhower warned against the growing corporate interest in the economics of war. Source: NPR
In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the growing costs America endured in its arms race with the Soviet Union. He specifically warned on the increased reliance of the US military on private armament manufacturers: “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.” In the subsequent sixty-one years since Eisenhower’s speech, American military contractors have not only seen an exponential increase in profits but in political influence as well. In the first three quarters of 2021, the defense industry spent $98.9 million on lobbying, which is the highest number since 2013. These efforts have been largely fruitful for defense companies, as the United States plans to spend more than $770 billion on defense in 2023 — with over half of this budget going to arms spending. Through increased profits and lobbying, arms dealers have gained legislative powers despite being an outside interest group.
The emerging Russian invasion of Ukraine has sparked concerns about the prospect of a second Cold War between Russia and the United States. While Western leaders have yet to indicate any direct military response to Russia, defense spending has undoubtedly increased. Shares in U.S. defense contractor Northrop Grumman have risen 3.59%. Lockheed Martin, another American arms seller, has seen its shares rise from $354.36 at the beginning of 2022 to $409.49 at February’s close.
Similar to it’s position during the Cold War, the U.S. military-industrial complex may not be entirely incentivized to go to war today. Public support for war in America has remained relatively low in recent years. A Gallup poll found that only 46% of Americans believed the war in Afghanistan was “not a mistake.” This number draws shocking contrast to the 93% favorability rating given the war in 2002. Given the recent lack of approval for direct action by the U.S. military, a revitalized arms race may be the most profitable option for arms manufacturers. While wars are lucrative for these companies in the short term, arms races can better guarantee long-term profitability. Like in the first Cold War, these competitions can last for decades, only ending with the complete dissolution of one state and its economy. These non-violent conflicts also benefit from the lack of direct aggression. Citizens often become more motivated to resist a government when their lives are put at direct risk. While economic hardships can produce these same results, the direct threat of livelihood remains the chief motivator.
Unlike Eisenhower could have imagined, U.S. arms dealers have also established their hegemony on a global scale. Arms dealers, especially those in the United States, do not need their home countries to go to war, as they can outfit foreign powers like Ukraine. In a January 25th earnings call, Greg Hayes, the CEO of Raytheon, noted, “The tensions in Eastern Europe, and the tensions in the South China Sea, all of those things are putting pressure on some of the defense spending over there. So I fully expect we [Raytheon] are going to see some benefit from it.” Companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin experience direct gains in the continued conflict within Ukraine regardless of Western intervention. In a more general context, 61% of global arms sales in 2019 came from the United States. Similarly, five of the world’s largest ten defense contractors come from the U.S.. Thus, the military-industrial complex no longer requires direct U.S. involvement to be profitable.
Whatever proceeds in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine, private arms manufacturers, especially those in the United States, are set to profit. The rise of the military-industrial complex adds an unprecedented dimension to the processes of war. The waging of war itself comes with an expectation of costs endured by almost every party involved. Traditionally, all levels of society, from political leaders to the general population, face some set of sacrifices or risks in fighting another country. Arms dealers have emerged as a noteworthy exception to this paradigm, though, as they only profit from violence or defense. They exist in a position removed from the government yet have the power and funds to push desired legislation. Whether one agrees with the predominance of the military-industrial complex or not, their growing influence will likely lead to increased militarism and armed defense both in the United States and the rest of the globe.