How to Destroy an Industrial Complex
If we are talking about militarism -- an overgrown military establishment, a proclivity for war, and runaway executive power, all justified by exaggerated security concerns -- then I agree that we have a problem. But the problem results not because we can't sustain this posture but because we can.
We are still rich as hell, despite our current trouble, which is not a result of military spending or war in any case. Despite George Bush's assaults on our civil liberties, our freedoms are essentially intact; we vote and speak as we like. And the vast majority of us are safe and secure. The danger of war does not touch us.
When Harold Lasswell warned long ago about the danger of a garrison state, this is what he misunderstood. Our economy is so productive that we can pay for a massive military establishment and still be free and prosperous. Sure, we are a little less free and prosperous as a result, but for those of us who do not fight our wars, it is a small sacrifice.
This is the trouble. The costs of militarism are distributed among the population and the benefits are concentrated in what we call the military industrial complex, a way of describing a group of people who benefit from preparation for war-- not, I argue -- war itself. Because these people dominate our discourse about security, they teach us to be unduly afraid and attached to military means of solving our problems. They create a militarized ideology, which primes us for war. That is the thesis of Jack Snyder's classic book, Myths of Empire. Note that a set of interests incentivized to prepare for war is a good thing to have while dangers are large. But when they fade, the complex does not, and it generates support for itself.
What's the solution? Not cutting consumption, as Andrew Bacevich (who taught me much about militarism) argues. Importing oil does not require heavy military spending -- wrong-headed economic ideas about the need to "secure" Middle-Eastern energy supply do.
Nor does salvation lie in the reorganization of our national security institutions, via a new National Security Act, as Eugene suggests in the conclusion of his book. (It is surprising that Eugene, who is so critical of Washington, adopts one of its worst conceits, the idea that every policy problem has a solution in the organization of the executive branch). The National Security Act of 1947, on which Eugene pins so much blame, is a consequence of the problem he describes, a large peace-time military establishment, not its cause.
The solution lies in three things: international politics, Congressional power, and the conflict of interests favoring militarism with other interests.
Realists believe that states that act unwisely abroad ultimately get burned. That has happened, tragically, in Iraq and, increasingly, in Afghanistan. It's true that bad wars do not cost most people, but they do tend to discredit the ideology that justified them. Unfortunately, the tendency to mythologize the surge is teaching Americans the wrong lessons about Iraq. We may need to repeat the experience before we learn the limits of our power.
Congress could relearn its constitutional responsibilities, remembering the invitation that the Constitution gives them to struggle for war powers. (The irony of self-described strict constructionists on the right debasing Congress' war powers is rich.) This outcome is unlikely, however, without divided government.
Third, the military industrial complex may conflict with other concentrated interests. As federal revenue drops and entitlement costs rise, there is bound to be a reckoning between competing spending priorities with powerful backers. Greater federal spending on health care would accelerate that reckoning. That could cause a public fight about what our biggest threats are. Americans might decide that they'd rather have prescription drugs than imperial commitments.
news report:
The debate about guns or butter hotted up last week, with Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) calling for an enormous decline in defense spending of 25 percent and the head of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.) saying money for weapons will have to come from spending originally slated to fund substantial increases in Army personnel.
October 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps attention should be aid to Congressional Pork and the military industries it supports. Now that votes are no longer needed to insert said pork into huge bills, unsupervised spending by Democrats is the next frontier.
That said, we have some 700 overseas bases. we should close them all and let the rest of the world interact without interference from us. It would...
* save enough money to pay off ALL our debt,
* eliminate casualties of Americans and those caused by Americans,
* we would be loved again by the entire globe.
Anyone see a downside to this idea?
October 28, 2008 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
shooter,
I can tell by your post that you're being influenced by the liberal thinking you find here.
October 28, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben you contradict yourself. You start off by saying that we are rich as hell and can afford war. But then finish by saying we cannot continue to spend on war and domestic needs at the same time. I agree with the latter. Current expenditures on the military and war cannot be maintained along with efforts to stabilize the economy. If we try we are in danger of bankrupting the entire country. Hence we are not that rich.
October 28, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The observation that empires tend to spend themselves into oblivion is an old one, and has been explored most fully by this country's paleoconservative/libertarian Right.
October 28, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What does it mean to say we are "rich?" What seems true is that we continue doing what we are doing until we get sick and tired of it. We can talk about budgets as much as we want but you don't see national strikes or a major party really taking a stand to the effect that we are going to begin to wind down the size of our military.
We have been expansionist from the very beginning. What is new are the now seemingly permanent standing armies and air force. Unwinding this will not be easy or necessarily bring immediate economic benefits. Those employed will still need to live and it is not the case that they can stop doing X and start doing Y. I do not think humans and their institutions are that flexible.
The impending increase in entitlement expenditures is largely due to changes in demographics, e.g., aging population, increase in longevity, more education requirements, baby boom, etc. Either we decide to stop educating our children and letting our elders die in the streets or we figure out what needs to be done and how to do it.
What we are pointing to are identifiable and solvable problems but the solutions are not simple or quick and they affect the day-to-day lives of most of the people in this country. In fact, they will define who we are as a people. Where Ben's post is concerned, the big question is whether or not we wish to be the greatest military power on earth and if not, what is the role of the military.
To date, I really do not see much public objection to our current state. There are a variety of criticisms and complaints and some true opposition but we need to get a grounded sense of how much the public really likes the idea of having the kind of military we have. I would note that this has not been an issue in this campaign or any other that I can recall--opposition to specific wars don't count as a rejection of militarism.
I can't say I like the status quo. This is a big part of the fabric of our country. It would be good to see a really good in depth study of our attitude towards militarism. Polls always show that our military institutions are highly respected and trusted. That is more than merely tolerated. Maybe we will have to bankrupt ourselves to get over this. I do not know but I do know that it is a big drain on the economy and does not produce anything we use.
October 28, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
While we have wrecking ball out, let's give it a swing at the prison industrial complex.
October 28, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The real problem with the military industrial complex is not the cost. It is the intellectual capital squandered on the development of weapons systems. When all of the weapons capability developed is coupled to a moralistic foreign policy, the result is a very low return on investment.
October 28, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second the motion.
October 28, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Friedman writes:
"Our economy is so productive that we can pay for a massive military establishment and still be free and prosperous."
Has there ever been a more falacious statement?
We are neither free, nor are we in reality prosperous. We are up to our eyeballs in debt. No people anywhere at anytime have had a debt even approaching that of the US at this time.
In 2000, the Republican Party and 5 justices of the Supreme Court acted illegally to seize power for an imposter who continues to hold power to this day. The tyrant has used his illegitimate power to violate the constitution and the rights of the people in myriad and very substantive ways. No people is free that has a government imposed upon it by a small faction. The "election" of 2004 was rigged and once again the tyrant was declared the winner despite having lost the election. The tyrant has initiated two wars, one of which is bankrupting the nation and destroying our military. The tyrant has utterly wrecked our nation's economy and it will take many years to recover, if indeed, we ever recover.
Mr. Friedman is living in a fantasy world. Sadly, most of our members of Congress continue to live in the same fantasy world. America is on the decline. The question is will we manage it in a way that maintains enough power for us to continue to be a major influence on the world stage in a positive manner as we had since WWII or will we follow the Bush path of belligerence and hostility and thus accelerate the decline?
What propserity "we" have is illusory at best and no more sound than plan to double down on a craps bet after losing all your money earlier in the night and then charging your credit card to the max to theoretically win it all back in one grand moment of luck.
October 28, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should have added that the US spends annually on "defense" (aka WAR spending)more than all the other nations on earth combined spend on "defense" annually. The solution to this outrageous and obscene level of spending on death and destruction that has no point other than to enrich the war industries is to stop spending the money in a big weay.
Kudos to Barney Frank for proposing a 25% cut in military spending but that is chump change. We could easily, let me repeat: EASILY cut our annual war spending by 50% and still be spending far more than any other country on earth. The sooner we do that, the sooner we can begin to hope for prosperity to return.
When the military was actually cut for a few brief years in the 90's when the Cold War was over, that fueled a massive economic boom in our country. If we cut the military by 50% and keep it that way we can easily have national health care, improve our schools, roads, invest more in scientific research, eradicate poverty and adequately invest in human beings and the development of our human capital and potential for the first time in our history.
The #1 problem for the past 60 years in terms of government spending is and has been "defense" spending. It ain't Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid or anyting else. It's the ongoing and totally unjustifiable waste of funds for waging wars.
October 28, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Oleeb. I would like to inquire what metrics Ben is using at measuring the current "wealth" of our country.
He can't be unaware of the dreary fact that the 1950s economy is long gone and that what replaced it was a structure based on leveraging the effects of the country's financial primacy in the post cold-war world economy. In other words, our wealth was based on our cunning use of the dollar's reserve status and that we had the most stable bourse. We were highly leveraged, and still are. With the world economic slowdown, and unparalled event, not seen by any of us in our lifetimes, Obama will inherit a country that is in somewhat parlous condition.
Realistically, the health proposal is going to be put on the shelf. The government is largely bankrupt by any normal definition of the term. Obama will not have two Roosevelt dimes to rub together for any new program unless he borrow them.
But the borrowing sources are having their own troubles. As Ben probably knows the Hang Seng is down an astounding 78% last I checked. To say that there is anger rising to the hysterical level over in that community is an understatement. We have to worry more about a concerted effort involving China/Russia/EU and others to rethink the position of the USD as in deposing it. And then when that happens our false economic empirium will be over. Just like that.
The military industrial complex will have to be trimmed back. Drastically. Or float the idea that the EU help subsidize it with tariff deals favorable to our export base...whats left of it.
Right now, they will laugh at us if we bring up any such notion, as well they should.
Obama will be in a historic position. This reminds me a little of 1848 and a little of the Congress of Vienna. Things are changing internationally and if I know Obama he will not take the route the right wing would have him...prolonging the dream of American supremacy. And he will be blamed mightily for it.
October 28, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Defenders of the military/industrial/congressional complex compare the amount being spent to the GDP (about 4-5%) and conclude that we can "afford" it.
But as the current economic decline shows spending by the federal government leverages much more than a similar amount spent elsewhere. Right now 54% of the federal discretionary budget goes to militarism (up from 50% before GWB). This is money that is being used to blow things up, not build things up.
The result is that we have widespread tax resentment (after all people are only getting half their money's worth on tangible things) and persistent under investment in social programs, infrastructure, basic R&D and the like. So we really can't "afford" this level of militarism.
There seems little prospect for change, however. Even Obama is promising an increase in military spending as well as an expansion of the war in Afghanistan. The American public (implicitly) supports this type of policy since we all know that the only way we can maintain our wasteful lifestyle is by obtain raw materials and finished goods from the rest of the world at favorable terms.
Countries don't sell to us cheaply because they want to, but because they are intimidated into doing so. With 5% of the world's population we use 40% of the resources. This requires a military threat and the US public knows it. Nothing substantive will change until the rest of the world can push back successfully.
When it does the US will become a less prosperous place, just like the UK did after it lost its empire and since we are doing nothing to prepare for a diminished economy the suffering will be greater than it need be.
October 29, 2008 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink