Main Goal Of Truman Doctrine

Concept in war machine and political science

The expression war machine–industrial complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country'due south military and the defense force industry that supplies information technology, seen together every bit a vested interest which influences public policy.^[1] ^[two] ^[three] ^[four] A driving cistron behind the human relationship between the armed services and the defence-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining state of war weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them.^[v] The term is nigh ofttimes used in reference to the organization backside the armed forces of the United States, where the relationship is nearly prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians.^[vi] ^[7] The expression gained popularity after a warning of the relationship's detrimental furnishings, in the farewell accost of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961.^[8] ^[9]

In the context of the United states, the appellation is sometimes extended to military–industrial–congressional complex (MICC), adding the U.South. Congress to form a 3-sided relationship termed an "iron triangle".^[10] Its three legs include political contributions, political approving for military spending, lobbying to back up bureaucracies, and oversight of the manufacture; or more broadly, the entire network of contracts and flows of coin and resources among individuals besides as corporations and institutions of the defence force contractors, private military contractors, the Pentagon, Congress, and the executive branch.^[11]

Etymology [edit]

Eisenhower's farewell address, Jan 17, 1961. The term military–industrial circuitous is used at 8:16. Length: 15:thirty.

President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on Jan 17, 1961:^[12]

A vital element in keeping the peace is our armed services establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense armed forces 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 authorities, nosotros must guard confronting 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 have nothing for granted. Just an alert and knowledgeable denizens tin can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and freedom may prosper together. [emphasis added]

The phrase was idea to have been "war-based" industrial complex earlier becoming "military" in later on drafts of Eisenhower'due south oral communication, a merits passed on only by oral history.^[13] Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military machine–industrial–congressional circuitous", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military manufacture, just the discussion "congressional" was dropped from the last version to appease the so-currently elected officials.^[fourteen] James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by whatever testify; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that information technology was originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".^[xiv] ^[15] Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that information technology was originally "war machine–industrial–academic complex".^[16] The bodily authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph East. Williams and Malcolm Moos.^[17]

The 20 largest Usa defence force contractors ranked by their defense revenue as of 2020.^[18]

Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" existed before Eisenhower's address. Ledbetter finds the precise term used in 1947 in close to its later on significant in an article in Foreign Affairs by Winfield W. Riefler.^[xiv] ^[nineteen] In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book The Power Aristocracy that a course of armed forces, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the country, and were finer across democratic control. Friedrich Hayek mentions in his 1944 book The Road to Serfdom the danger of a support of monopolistic organization of industry from World War II political remnants:

Another chemical element which subsequently this war is likely to strengthen the tendencies in this direction volition be some of the men who during the state of war have tasted the powers of coercive control and will find it difficult to reconcile themselves with the humbler roles they volition then have to play [in peaceful times].^[twenty]

Vietnam State of war–era activists, such as Seymour Melman, referred frequently to the concept, and use continued throughout the Cold War: George F. Kennan wrote in his preface to Norman Cousins'southward 1987 book The Pathology of Power, "Were the Soviet Wedlock to sink tomorrow nether the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, essentially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Annihilation else would be an unacceptable daze to the American economy."^[21]

In the late 1990s James Kurth asserted, "By the mid-1980s... the term had largely fallen out of public discussion." He went on to argue that "[w]hatever the power of arguments about the influence of the military–industrial complex on weapons procurement during the Cold War, they are much less relevant to the current era".^[22]

Contemporary students and critics of U.S. militarism proceed to refer to and employ the term, however. For example, historian Chalmers Johnson uses words from the second, third, and fourth paragraphs quoted above from Eisenhower's address as an epigraph to Chapter Ii ("The Roots of American Militarism") of a 2004 volume^[23] on this subject. P. W. Singer'south book concerning private military companies illustrates gimmicky ways in which industry, particularly an information-based ane, still interacts with the U.South. federal and the Pentagon.^[24]

The expressions permanent war economy and war corporatism are related concepts that have also been used in association with this term.^{[ citation needed ]} The term is also used to draw comparable bunco in other political entities such as the High german Empire (prior to and through the first earth war), Britain, France, and (post-Soviet) Russia.^{[ commendation needed ]}

Linguist and anarchist theorist Noam Chomsky has suggested that "military machine–industrial complex" is a misnomer because (as he considers it) the phenomenon in question "is not specifically war machine".^[25] He asserts, "There is no war machine–industrial complex: information technology'south just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time)."^[26]

Post–Cold War [edit]

U.s. Defence Spending 2001–2017

At the end of the Common cold War, American defense contractors bewailed what they called failing government weapons spending.^[27] ^[28] They saw escalation of tensions, such as with Russia over Ukraine, as new opportunities for increased weapons sales, and have pushed the political system, both direct and through industry groups such equally the National Defence force Industrial Clan, to spend more on military hardware. Pentagon contractor-funded American recall tanks such every bit the Lexington Establish and the Atlantic Council have also demanded increased spending in view of the perceived Russian threat.^[28] ^[29] Independent Western observers such every bit William Huntzberger, director of the Arms & Security Project at the Center for International Policy, noted that "Russian saber-rattling has additional benefits for weapons makers considering it has get a standard part of the argument for higher Pentagon spending—even though the Pentagon already has more than than enough money to address any actual threat to the Us."^[28] ^[30]

Eras [edit]

Some sources divide the history of the military–industrial complex into three singled-out eras.^[31]

First era [edit]

From 1797 to 1941, the government only relied on civilian industries while the state was actually at war. The government owned their own shipyards and weapons manufacturing facilities which they relied on through World War I. With World War II came a massive shift in the fashion that the American regime armed the military.

With the onset of World State of war II President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to coordinate civilian industries and shift them into wartime production. Throughout World War II artillery product in the Us went from around one percent of the annual GDP to 40 percent of the GDP.^[31] Various American companies, such as Boeing and Full general Motors, maintained and expanded their defense divisions.^[31] These companies take gone on to develop various technologies that have improved civilian life equally well, such equally night-vision goggles and GPS.^[31]

Second era [edit]

The second era is identified as kickoff with the coining of the term by President Dwight D. Eisenhower. This era continued through the Cold War flow, upwards to the cease of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. A 1965 article written by Marc Pilisuk and Thomas Hayden says benefits of the War machine Industrial Circuitous of the Us include the advancement of the civilian technology market equally noncombatant companies do good from innovations from the MIC and vice versa.^[32] In 1993 the Pentagon urged defense contractors to consolidate due to the collapse of communism and shrinking defense upkeep.^[31]

Third (current) era [edit]

In the 3rd era, defence force contractors either consolidated or shifted their focus to civilian innovation. From 1992 to 1997 there was a total of The states$55 billion worth of mergers in the defense industry, with major defense companies purchasing smaller competitors.^[31]

A pie chart showing global military expenditures by country for 2019, in Us$ billions, according to SIPRI

In the current era, the armed services–industrial circuitous is seen as a core function of American policy-making. The American domestic economy is now tied directly to the success of the MIC which has led to concerns of repression as Cold War-era attitudes are still prevalent amid the American public.^[33]

Shifts in values and the plummet of communism take ushered in a new era for the military–industrial circuitous. The Section of Defense works in coordination with traditional military–industrial complex aligned companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Many sometime defense force contractors take shifted operations to the civilian market and sold off their defense departments.^[31]

Military subsidy theory [edit]

According to the military subsidy theory, the Cold War-era mass production of aircraft benefited the civilian shipping manufacture. The theory asserts that the technologies developed during the Cold War along with the financial bankroll of the military machine led to the dominance of American aviation companies. At that place is also strong bear witness that the U.s. federal government intentionally paid a college price for these innovations to serve as a subsidy for civilian aircraft advancement.^[34]

Current applications [edit]

Share of arms sales by country. Source is provided by SIPRI.^[35]

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Establish, full globe spending on armed services expenses in 2018 was $1822 billion. 36% of this total, roughly $649 billion, was spent by the United States.^[36] The privatization of the production and invention of armed forces technology also leads to a complicated relationship with pregnant enquiry and evolution of many technologies. In 2011, the United States spent more (in absolute numbers) on its military than the next 13 countries combined.^[37]

The military budget of the United states of america for the 2009 fiscal year was $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.^[38] This does not include many armed forces-related items that are exterior of the Defense Section budget. Overall the U.S. federal government is spending about $1 trillion annually on defense-related purposes.^[39]

In a 2012 story, Salon reported, "Despite a refuse in global artillery sales in 2010 due to recessionary pressures, the Us increased its market share, bookkeeping for a whopping 53 percent of the trade that year. Last yr saw the United States on footstep to evangelize more than $46 billion in strange arms sales."^[40] The defense force industry also tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.^[41]

Like concepts [edit]

A thesis similar to the war machine–industrial complex was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist regime ties to heavy industry. It tin be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in armed forces-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."^[42] An exhibit of the tendency was made in Franz Leopold Neumann'due south volume Behemoth: The Structure and Exercise of National Socialism in 1942, a report of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state.

Within decades of its inception, the thought of the military machine–industrial complex gave ascent to other similar industrial complexes, including the animal–industrial complex, prison–industrial complex, pharmaceutical–industrial complex, entertainment-industrial circuitous, and medical–industrial circuitous.^[43] ^{: nine–xxv} Virtually all institutions in sectors ranging from agriculture, medicine, amusement, and media, to instruction, criminal justice, security, and transportation, began reconceiving and reconstructing in accordance with capitalist, industrial, and bureaucratic models with the aim of realizing profit, growth, and other imperatives. According to Steven All-time, all these systems interrelate and reinforce one some other.^[43]

The concept of the military–industrial complex has been expanded to include the entertainment and creative industries as well. For an example in practice, Matthew Brummer describes Japan's Manga Military machine and how the Ministry of Defense force uses pop culture and the moe that it engenders to shape domestic and international perceptions.^[44]

An culling term to describe the interdependence betwixt the military-industrial complex and the amusement industry is coined past James Der Derian as "Military machine-Industrial-Media-Entertainment-Network". ^[45]

Meet likewise [edit]

From the National Archives

List of defense contractors
List of countries by military expenditures
Elevation 100 Contractors of the U.Due south. federal government
Animate being–industrial complex
Corporate statism
Erik Prince and Academi (formerly Blackwater)
Government contractor
Militarism
Military budget
War machine-amusement complex
Military–industrial–media complex
Armed services-digital complex
Military Keynesianism
National security state
Politico-media complex
Prison–industrial complex
Private war machine visitor
Project for the New American Century
Ukraine's industrial circuitous
Rosoboronexport
Upward Spiral
War profiteering

Literature and media

War Is a Racket (1935 book by Smedley Butler)
The Power Elite (1956 book by C. Wright Mills)
Why We Fight (2005 documentary film by Eugene Jarecki)
War Made Easy: How Presidents & Pundits Keep Spinning The states to Death (2007 documentary film)
The Circuitous: How the Armed services Invades Our Everyday Lives (2008 book by Nick Turse)

References [edit]

Citations [edit]

^ "military industrial circuitous". American Heritage Dictionary. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 2015. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
^ "definition of military-industrial complex (American English)". OxfordDictionaries.com. Archived from the original on March 7, 2016. Retrieved March 3, 2016.
^ "Definition of Military–industrial circuitous". Merriam-Webster . Retrieved March 3, 2016.
^ Roland, Alex (2009). "The Military-Industrial Circuitous: antechamber and trope". In Bacevich, Andrew J. (ed.). The Long State of war: A New History of U.S. National Security Policy Since Globe War II. Columbia University Press. pp. 335–370. ISBN978-0231131599.
^ "What is the Military-Industrial Complex?". Retrieved February v, 2017.
^ "Ike'southward Warning Of Military Expansion, 50 Years Later". NPR. January 17, 2011. Retrieved March 27, 2019.
^ "SIPRI Year Book 2008; Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security" Oxford University Press 2008 ISBN 978-0199548958
^ "The Military–Industrial Circuitous; The Farewell Address of Presidente Eisenhower" Basements publications 2006 ISBN 0976642395
^ Held, David; McGrew, Anthony G.; Goldblatt, David (1999). "The expanding reach of organized violence". In Perraton, Jonathan (ed.). Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford University Press. p. 108. ISBN978-0804736275.
^ Higgs, Robert (2006). Depression, War, and Cold War : Studies in Political Economy: Studies in Political Economic system . Oxford University Press. pp. ix, 138. ISBN978-0195346084 . Retrieved March 3, 2016.
^ "Long-term Historical Reflection on the Rise of Military-Industrial, Managerial Statism or "Military-Industrial Complexes"". Kimball Files. University of Oregon. Retrieved June 21, 2014.
^ "President Dwight Eisenhower Farewell Address". C-Span. January 17, 1961.
^ John Milburn (December 10, 2010). "Papers shed low-cal on Eisenhower'south cheerio address". Associated Printing. Retrieved Jan 28, 2011.
^ ^a ^b ^c Ledbetter, James (Jan 25, 2011). "Guest Postal service: 50 Years of the "Armed services–Industrial Complex"". Schott'south Vocab. New York Times. Retrieved January 25, 2011.
^ Brinkley, Douglas (September 2001). "Eisenhower; His bye speech equally President inaugurated the spirit of the 1960s". American Heritage. 52 (6). Archived from the original on March 23, 2006. Retrieved Jan 25, 2011.
^ Giroux, Henry (June 2007). "The Academy in Chains: Confronting the War machine–Industrial–Academic Complex". Image Publishers. Archived from the original on August 20, 2007. Retrieved May 16, 2011.
^ Griffin, Charles "New Lite on Eisenhower's Farewell Address," in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479
^ "Top 100 | Defense News, News about defence programs, business concern, and technology".
^ Riefler, Winfield W. (October 1947). "Our Economic Contribution to Victory". Foreign Affairs. 26 (1): 90–103. doi:ten.2307/20030091. JSTOR 20030091.
^ Hayek, F. A., (1976) "The Road to Serfdom", London: Routledge, p. 146, notation 1
^ Kennan, George Frost (1997). At a Century's Ending: Reflections 1982–1995. W.W. Norton and Company. p. 118. ISBN978-0393316094.
^ Kurth 1999. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKurth1999 (assist)
^ Johnson, Chalmers (2004). The sorrows of empire: Militarism, secrecy, and the end of the commonwealth. New York: Metropolitan Books. p. 39.
^ Corporate Warriors: The Ascension of the Privatized Military machine Industry. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.
^ "War Crimes and Purple Fantasies, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian". chomsky.info. Archived from the original on September 2, 2004. Retrieved October 17, 2007.
^ In On Power, Dissent, and Racism: a Serial of Discussions with Noam Chomsky, Baraka Productions, 2003.
^ Thompson Reuters Streetevents, 8 December 2015, "L-3 Communications Holding Inc. Investors Conference," p. 3, http://world wide web.l-3com.com/sites/default/files/pdf/investor-pdf/2015_investor_conference_transcript.pdf Archived April 19, 2016, at the Wayback Automobile
^ ^a ^b ^c The Intercept, 19 August 2016, "U.S. Defense Contractors Tell Investors Russian thread is Great for Business organisation," https://theintercept.com/2016/08/xix/nato-weapons-industry/
^ U.Due south. Business firm of Representatives Commission on Military, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, eleven May 2016, Testimony of M. Thomas Davis, Senior Fellow, National Defense Industrial Association, "U.Due south. Industry Perspective on the Section of Defense'south Policies, Roles and Responsibilities for Foreign Military Sales," http://docs.house.gov/meetings/As/AS06/20160511/104900/HHRG-114-AS06-Bio-DavisT-20160511.pdf
^ Shindler, Michael (June 22, 2018). "The Armed forces Industrial Complex's Assault on Liberty". The American Conservative. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f ^g Lynn III, William (2017). "The End of the Armed services-Industrial Complex". Strange Affairs. 93: 104–110 – via EBSCOhost.
^ Pilisuk, Marc; Hayden, Thomas (July 1965). "Is There a Military Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace?: Consensus and Countervailing Power in Pluralistic Systems". Journal of Social Bug. 21 (3): 67–117. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1965.tb00506.10. ISSN 0022-4537.
^ Moskos, Charles C. Jr. (April 1974). "The Concept of the Military-Industrial Complex: Radical Critique or Liberal Bogey?". Social Problems. 21 (four): 498–512. doi:10.1525/sp.1974.21.4.03a00040. ISSN 0037-7791.
^ Gholz, E. (January 6, 2011). "Eisenhower versus the Spin-off Story: Did the Rise of the Military-Industrial Complex Injure or Help America's Commercial Shipping Manufacture?". Enterprise and Society. 12 (1): 46–95. doi:10.1093/es/khq134. ISSN 1467-2227.
^ "Artillery product | SIPRI".
^ Trends in World Military Expenditure Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.
^ Plumer, Brad (January 7, 2013), "America's staggering defense upkeep, in charts", The Washington Mail
^ Gpoaccess.gov Archived 2012-01-07 at the Wayback Machine
^ Robert Higgs. "The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here". Retrieved March 15, 2007.
^ "America, arms-dealer to the world," Salon, January 24, 2012.
^ Jen DiMascio. "Defence force goes all-in for incumbents - Jen DiMascio". POLITICO.
^ Pursell, C. (1972). The war machine–industrial complex. Harper & Row Publishers, New York, New York.
^ ^a ^b Steven All-time; Richard Kahn; Anthony J. Nocella Ii; Peter McLaren, eds. (2011). "Introduction: Pathologies of Ability and the Rising of the Global Industrial Complex". The Global Industrial Complex: Systems of Domination. Rowman & Littlefield. p. xvi. ISBN978-0739136980.
^ Diplomat, Matthew Brummer, The. "Nihon: The Manga Armed forces". The Diplomat . Retrieved Jan 22, 2016.
^ "Virtuous State of war: Mapping the War machine-Industrial-Media-Entertainment-Network". Routledge & CRC Press . Retrieved July 12, 2021.

Sources [edit]

DeGroot, Gerard J. Blighty: British Social club in the Era of the Bang-up War, 144, London & New York: Longman, 1996, ISBN 0582061385
Eisenhower, Dwight D. Public Papers of the Presidents, 1035–1040. 1960.^{[ ISBN missing ]}
Eisenhower, Dwight D. "Farewell Address." In The Annals of America. Vol. 18. 1961–1968: The Burdens of World Ability, ane–5. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1968.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. President Eisenhower'southward Goodbye Accost, Wikisource.
Hartung, William D. "Eisenhower's Warning: The Military–Industrial Circuitous Twoscore Years Later." World Policy Periodical xviii, no. i (Spring 2001).
Johnson, Chalmers The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004^{[ ISBN missing ]}
Kurth, James. "War machine–Industrial Circuitous." In The Oxford Companion to American Armed services History, ed. John Whiteclay Chambers Ii, 440–442. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.^{[ ISBN missing ]}
Nelson, Lars-Erik. "Military–Industrial Human." In New York Review of Books 47, no. xx (Dec. 21, 2000): 6.
Nieburg, H. L. In the Proper noun of Science, Quadrangle Books, 1970^{[ ISBN missing ]}
Mills, C. Wright."Ability Elite", New York, 1956^{[ ISBN missing ]}

External links [edit]

Wikisource has original text related to this commodity:

Khaki commercialism, The Economist, December 3, 2011
Militaryindustrialcomplex.com, Features running daily, weekly and monthly defense spending totals plus Contract Archives section.
C. Wright Mills, Structure of Power in American Social club, British Journal of Folklore, Vol. 9. No. i 1958
Dwight David Eisenhower, Farewell Address On the armed forces–industrial circuitous and the government–universities collusion – January 17, 1961
Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address As delivered transcript and complete audio from AmericanRhetoric.com
William McGaffin and Erwin Knoll, The armed services–industrial complex, An analysis of the phenomenon written in 1969
The Cost of War & Today's Military Industrial Complex, National Public Radio, January 8, 2003.
Human Rights Get-go; Private Security Contractors at War: Ending the Civilisation of Impunity (2008)
50 Years After Eisenhower'south Farewell Address, A Look at the Military–Industrial Complex – video report by Democracy Now!
Online documents, Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library
50th Anniversary of Eisenhower'south Farewell Address – Eisenhower Found
Function 1 – Anniversary Give-and-take of Eisenhower's Cheerio Accost – Gettysburg Higher
Part 2 – Ceremony Discussion of Eisenhower's Farewell Accost – Gettysburg Higher