The Military-Industrial Complex

Following World War II, the beginning of the Cold War and the U.S. vs. Soviet fight for global dominance prompted the U.S. government's rapid increase in military spending. The central foreign and domestic policy goal of the U.S. was to contain and eventually deter Soviet influence at home and abroad, a goal that paved the way for a significant increase in the influence of the military establishment in both foreign and domestic policy. Ever since the era of increased military influence, the military and government have kept the United States in consistent military operations in order to provide a market for weapons contractors. This military-industrial complex, although rarely discussed, is one of the, if not the single most important factor

The three largest American military contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumann, in total employ approximately 410,000 people and produce nearly $95 billion in arms sales (Lee and Johnson). Those who support the complex recognize that this increased supply of arms eventually should lead to a global increase in demand for these arms in order to return the market to equilibrium. Those who support the military establishment also analyze this increase in supply and eventually demand as beneficial to the overall growth of the American economy. In addition to the 410,000 people working for military contractors, the military itself, the homeland security and police sectors employ over 1,000,000 people (Turley), jobs that are valuable in weak economies. The major beneficiaries of increased employment and funding include the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice (Turley). From the perspective of those who argue in favor of national security over civil liberties, strong defense, homeland security, and justice departments ensure and protect national security because the funding allows them to have the power to act appropriately and efficiently in times of national emergency. The positive influence the

economic dependence on the complex for the economy to remain stable. Primarily due to the nature of the military-industrial complex, critics argue that the need to constantly produce arms and military contracts drives every American foreign military involvement, regardless of the necessity of that interventionism. Additionally, over the past 50 fiscal years military spending has nearly doubled from $350 billion during the Eisenhower Administration to $700 billion under the Obama Administration (Historical Defense Cuts Fiscal Years 1948-2012). This increase in military spending has paralleled a staggering rise in both federal deficits and the national debt that has left politicians, as critics argue, helpless to resolve the debt crisis and to control the military-industrial complex. The major principle that causes some to criticize the influence of the complex is that it too strongly controls the economic and political system- which some traditional conservatives believe should be more decentralized- and thus corrupts those systems because their success currently relies too heavily on the success of a solitary factor- the military-industrial complex. The negative influence the establishment has on perpetuating hawkishness in American foreign policy and forming a weapons-based