The sheer amount of funding allocated to the Pentagon and nuclear weapons work is staggering, and it comes at the expense of essential areas like education and renewable energy.
President Eisenhower’s speech, “The Chance for Peace,” delivered in 1953, highlights the grave tradeoffs that come with military spending.
In fact, the arms industry as a whole has donated over $83 million to political candidates in the past two election cycles, with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman leading the pack.
According to a forthcoming report by the Quincy Institute, over 75% of the top foreign-policy think tanks in the United States receive some form of funding from defense contractors.
The Military-Entertainment Complex: Propaganda in Hollywood Blockbusters Hollywood has long been accused of serving as a propaganda tool for the US military, with the Pentagon and CIA exerting direct editorial control over thousands of films and television shows.
The Pentagon’s Insatiable Hunger for Tax Dollars: A Closer Look at the Military-Industrial Complex
The military-industrial complex has been a part of American politics for decades, but its influence has only grown stronger over time. The amount of money allocated to the Pentagon and nuclear weapons work has increased exponentially since President Eisenhower’s warning more than 60 years ago. In 2021, the proposed budget for these entities is a staggering $886 billion, which is more than twice as much as it was during Eisenhower’s time, adjusted for inflation.
The Discretionary Budget: How the Pentagon Dominates
One of the most significant issues with the military-industrial complex is that it eats up more than half of the federal discretionary budget. This leaves very little funding for critical priorities like public health, environmental protection, job training, and education, which must compete for the scraps that remain.
The Insatiable Hunger of Weapons Producers
The dominance of the military-industrial complex is exemplified by the sheer amount of money that weapons producers like Lockheed Martin receive in Pentagon contracts. In 2020, Lockheed Martin received $75 billion in contracts, more than the budgets of the State Department and the Agency for International Development combined. Furthermore, the spending on Lockheed Martin’s overpriced and underperforming F-35 combat aircraft alone is equal to the full budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
The Taxpayer’s Burden: Weapons Contractors vs. Education and Renewable Energy
Perhaps most troubling of all is the fact that the average taxpayer spends $1,087 per year on weapons contractors. This is compared to just $270 for K-12 education and a mere $6 for renewable energy. This highlights the government’s misplaced priorities, as funding is disproportionately allocated to weapons contractors rather than to critical areas that would benefit society as a whole.
The military-industrial complex has become an insatiable black hole that consumes an alarming amount of tax dollars. The sheer amount of funding allocated to the Pentagon and nuclear weapons work is staggering, and it comes at the expense of essential areas like education and renewable energy. It’s time for our leaders to take a closer look at this issue and begin addressing it before it’s too late.
President Eisenhower’s speech, “The Chance for Peace,” delivered in 1953, highlights the grave tradeoffs that come with military spending. His words ring true today as they did more than 60 years ago. In this speech, Eisenhower painted a vivid picture of the consequences of every gun made, warship launched, and a rocket fired, stating that they are theft from those who hunger and are not fed and those who are cold and are not clothed. He emphasized that a world in arms is not merely spending money but also the sweat of laborers, the genius of scientists, and the hopes of children.
It is unfortunate that Eisenhower’s words continue to be relevant today. The military-industrial complex, as it exists today, is a testament to the grim reality he described more than 60 years ago. The staggering amount of money that is spent on military hardware, coupled with the intense lobbying of the weapons industry, has resulted in a situation where vital social programs are forced to compete for the scraps that remain in the federal budget.
In a world where hunger and poverty persist, and access to healthcare and education remains a dream for many, it’s crucial to heed Eisenhower’s words. His cautionary message should be a wake-up call to our leaders, who must recognize the need to reassess the current priorities of the federal budget. It’s time to shift the focus from weapons production to social programs that can provide real benefits to society.
Eisenhower’s message still resonates today, and his words serve as a stark reminder of the price we pay for our obsession with military might. It’s time to reevaluate our priorities, listen to the voices of those who have been neglected, and make a genuine effort to build a more equitable and peaceful world.
The Military-Industrial Complex 2.0: New Rationales, New Weaponry
President Eisenhower’s warning about the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) in 1961 may seem like ancient history, but its influence on the US government and economy is still pervasive. However, the current iteration of the MIC is vastly different from its predecessor in both its size and its goals. In fact, the major defense contractors of today are so enormous that they dwarf the dozens of significant defense contractors of Eisenhower’s era. The Big Five, consisting of Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Raytheon, receive a staggering $150 billion in Pentagon contracts annually, almost 20 percent of the total Pentagon budget. This concentration of power has left the Pentagon with increasingly limited leverage in preventing overcharging for underperforming products.
Moreover, unlike the Soviet Union, which was used to justify the establishment of an ever-larger arms industry, China is today’s “pacing threat.” However, while China’s challenge to the United States is primarily economic, Washington has significantly inflated the military threat it poses. Despite China having more naval vessels, the US Navy possesses far more firepower, and the American nuclear weapons stockpile is roughly nine times as large as China’s. Despite this, the Pentagon budget is three times what Beijing spends on its military. But for Pentagon contractors, the focus on China has one significant benefit: it’s great for business.
The prospect of war with China justifies the development of high-tech systems, from hypersonic missiles to robotic weapons and artificial intelligence. However, the history of high-tech systems, from President Reagan’s “Star Wars” missile defense system to the F-35, has not been favorable for cost or performance. Nonetheless, expect to see tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars invested in developing these dangerous technologies, which may fail in unpredictable ways and cause unintended human casualties or an uncontrolled escalation crisis.
The Military-Industrial Complex: A Billion-Dollar Industry Built on Influence
The military-industrial complex (MIC) is a powerful force in Washington, and it’s no secret that this billion-dollar industry exerts a huge amount of influence on US politics. From lobbyists to political campaigns, think tanks to Hollywood, the MIC has an arsenal of resources at its disposal to secure ever-increasing budgets from taxpayers.
But it’s not just about money. The dominance of a handful of mega-firms in weapons production means they have the resources to spread around in lobbying and campaign contributions. And they have the facilities and employees, often in politically key states, to point to when persuading members of Congress to vote for even more money for their weaponry of choice.
In fact, the arms industry as a whole has donated over $83 million to political candidates in the past two election cycles, with Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman leading the pack. These funds are heavily concentrated among members of the House and Senate armed services committees and defense appropriations subcommittees, ensuring that the money keeps flowing for more guns, tanks, ships, and missiles.
But the influence of the MIC doesn’t stop at political contributions. Lobbying expenditures by all those involved in the MIC are even higher, with over $247 million spent in the last two election cycles. And over two-thirds of the 820 lobbyists employed by the industry had previously worked at the Pentagon or in Congress.
The revolving door between the government and the MIC provides a powerful incentive for current members of Congress, their staff, and Pentagon personnel to play nice with the giant contractors while still in their government roles. After all, a lucrative lobbying career awaits once they leave government service.
But it’s not just lobbying jobs those weapons-making corporations offer. They’re also spreading jobs to nearly every Main Street in America, with Lockheed Martin’s F-35 as the poster child. The company insists that its program produces no less than 298,000 jobs in 48 states, even if the actual total is less than half of that.
A declining industry when it comes to job creation
However, the weapons sector is a declining industry when it comes to job creation, even if it does absorb near-record levels of government funding. Outsourcing, automation, and the production of fewer units of more complex systems have skewed the workforce toward better-paying engineering jobs and away from production work. This shift has come at a high price, as the vacuuming up of engineering and scientific talent by weapons makers means fewer skilled people are available to address urgent problems like public health and the climate crisis.
The MIC is a powerful and influential force in Washington, with billions of dollars at stake. While it’s true that the industry provides jobs to many Americans, it’s important to consider the cost. Spending on education, green energy, health care, or infrastructure could produce 40 percent to 100 percent more jobs than Pentagon spending does. It’s time to re-evaluate our priorities and ensure that we’re investing in the future of our country, not just in the bottom line of the military-industrial complex.
Shaping the Elite Narrative: The Military-Industrial Complex’s Influence on Think Tanks
The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC) has long been known for its power and influence in shaping national security policies. One of its most effective tools is its ability to fund foreign policy think tanks, which in turn produce research and analysis that often shapes elite discussions on matters of war and peace.
According to a forthcoming report by the Quincy Institute, over 75% of the top foreign-policy think tanks in the United States receive some form of funding from defense contractors. These contractors, such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, are then able to influence the narrative around national security issues by supporting research that aligns with their interests.
Role of Think-tanks
Think tanks like the Center for a New American Security and the Center for Strategic and International Studies, for example, receive millions of dollars in funding each year from defense contractors. In return, they produce reports and articles that are largely supportive of the defense industry. In some cases, they even support specific weapons systems without disclosing their conflicts of interest.
For instance, an American Enterprise Institute (AEI) scholar recently critiqued the Pentagon’s budget request, claiming that it was “well below inflation.” However, the same scholar also expressed support for increased funding for weapons systems like the Long Range Anti-Ship Missile and the B-21 bomber, without mentioning that the companies that build these weapons, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman, are AEI funders.
These think tanks also have a significant influence on mainstream media coverage of national security issues. The Quincy Institute report found that think tank experts who receive funding from the defense industry were more than four times as likely to be cited in articles about the Ukraine War.
Furthermore, these think tanks have become a breeding ground for future government officials, earning them the nickname “holding tanks.” The Center for a New American Security, for example, has boasted that many of its experts and alumni have gone on to join the Biden administration, including high-ranking political appointees at the Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency.
The influence of the military-industrial complex on think tanks and their experts cannot be underestimated. Their ability to shape elite discussions on national security issues, influence media coverage, and groom future government officials underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in the defense industry.
The Military-Entertainment Complex: Propaganda in Hollywood Blockbusters
Hollywood has long been accused of serving as a propaganda tool for the US military, with the Pentagon and CIA exerting direct editorial control over thousands of films and television shows. This has resulted in an entertainment culture that produces few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that glorify the military. One such recent blockbuster is Top Gun: Maverick, which not only wowed audiences but also served as a resounding success for the Pentagon and its defense contractors. The film was a prime example of the military-entertainment complex in action.
The Pentagon worked closely with the filmmakers, providing equipment, personnel, and technical expertise and even making script revisions. Defense contractors also played a pivotal role in the movie’s success, with Lockheed Martin boasting about partnering with the producers to bring cutting-edge technology to the big screen. However, despite the film’s success, audiences are rarely aware that they may be watching government-subsidized propaganda.
Few antiwar movies
This is a concerning issue, according to journalist David Sirota, who has repeatedly called attention to the perils of the military-entertainment complex. With the Pentagon and CIA exerting such a significant influence over the entertainment industry, it is not surprising that relatively few antiwar movies are produced. Instead, Hollywood produces blockbuster after blockbuster that glorifies the military, with audiences unaware that they may be consuming propaganda. In fact, according to Professor Roger Stahl, who researches propaganda and state violence at the University of Georgia, the Pentagon, and CIA have exercised direct editorial control over more than 2,500 films and television shows.
The military-entertainment complex is a powerful tool for shaping public opinion, with Hollywood serving as a vehicle for spreading military propaganda. The influence of the Pentagon and CIA over the entertainment industry has resulted in an entertainment culture that produces few antiwar movies and dozens of blockbusters that glorify the military, with audiences largely unaware of the propaganda they are consuming.
How to Counter the Military-Industrial Complex?
The military-industrial complex has been an insidious force in American politics for over six decades, manipulating the budget and policy-making process to favor war and weapons over peaceful solutions to security problems. To break the hold of this powerful and corrupt force, it is necessary to dismantle the key pillars that uphold it.
Campaign finance reform is essential to prevent weapons contractors from wielding disproportionate influence over elected officials. Likewise, we must close the revolving door between the weapons industry and government, preventing industry insiders from using their positions of power to push for contracts that benefit themselves and their former employers.
To further reduce the power of the military-industrial complex, we need to expose its funding of political campaigns, think tanks, and even Hollywood. By shining a light on these dark corners, we can show the public how deeply entrenched the influence of weapons contractors truly is.
Investments in the jobs of the future
Instead of piling up ever more weapons systems, we must prioritize investments in the jobs of the future, such as green technology and public health. By investing in these industries, we can create a better future for ourselves and our planet.
Perhaps the most important step of all is to launch a broad-based public education campaign to counter the current climate of fear that serves the interests of the Pentagon and giant weapons contractors at the expense of everyone else’s safety and security. By promoting more realistic views of the challenges posed by China and other nations, we can reduce the paranoia that often drives military spending.
Make no mistake, and this will be a challenging and lengthy process. However, the alternative is far worse. Without taking action, we risk spiraling into an ever-increasing arms race that could ultimately lead to a catastrophic world-ending conflict or prevent us from addressing existential threats such as climate change and pandemics. It’s time to take back control from the military-industrial complex and create a safer, more peaceful future for all.