Military-Industrial Complex

The military-industrial complex is a nation’s military establishment, as well as the industries

involved in the production of armaments and other military materials. In his 1961 farewell
address, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned the public of the nation’s
increasingly powerful military-industrial complex and the threat it posed to American
democracy. Today, the United States routinely outspends every other country for military
and defense expenditures.
This once popular concept was frequently used to explain the high levels of defense
spending and other bellicose postures the United States assumed toward Soviet
communism during the Cold War. President Dwight Eisenhower, a highly decorated World
War II general who led the famous Normandy invasion in 1944, first brought national
attention to the existence of a military industrial complex. Eisenhower worried that the
military-industrial complex was a threat because its vast power undermined the
countervailing forces that would otherwise keep the abuse of power in check. ‘‘We must
never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes,’’
he cautioned. In particular, the post–World War II arms race and the high level of U.S.
military spending during the period were often attributed to the self-aggrandizing activities
of the military and industrial sectors, which (so the reasoning goes) propagated policies
favorable to its interests.
EISENHOWER AND THE MILITARY
A retired five-star general in the U.S. Army, Dwight D. Eisenhower had served as commander
of Allied forces during World War II, and directed the D-Day invasion of France in 1944.
Eisenhower’s two terms as U.S. president (1953-61) coincided with an era of military
expansion unlike any other in the nation’s history. Rather than draw down its troops, as it
had after World War II, the U.S. military kept a large standing army after the Korean
War ended in 1953, and maintained a high level of military preparedness due to the
ongoing Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union.
Private companies that after past wars had gone back to civilian production kept
manufacturing armaments, producing increasingly sophisticated weapons in an arms race
with the Soviets.
Despite—or perhaps because of—his own experience with war, Eisenhower worried about
the nation’s military growth, and the escalation of the Cold War, throughout his presidency.
He tried to cut budgets for military services during his presidency, upsetting many in
the Pentagon.
As one Eisenhower biographer, David Nichols, told the Associated Press in 2010: “The
military wanted a lot more than he was willing to give them. It frustrated the Army. He
thought about it all the time.”
EISENHOWER’S FAREWELL ADDRESS
Eisenhower didn’t coin the phrase “military-industrial complex,” but he did make it famous.
On January 17, 1961, three days before John F. Kennedy was inaugurated as his successor,
Eisenhower delivered a farewell address in a TV broadcast from the Oval Office.
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” the 34th
president warned. “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist.”
According to Eisenhower, the “conjunction of an immense military establishment and a
large arms industry is new in the American experience,” and he feared it would lead to
policies that would not benefit Americans as a whole—like the escalation of the nuclear
arms race—at great cost to the nation’s well-being.
In addition to the Department of Defense and private military contractors, Eisenhower and
his advisers also implicitly included members of Congress from districts that depended on
military industries in the military-industrial complex.
Though dangerous, Eisenhower considered the military-industrial complex necessary to
deter Soviet Union from aggression against the United States and its allies. But he urged his
successors in government to balance defense and diplomacy in their relations with the
Soviet Union, saying: “We must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with
intellect and decent purpose.”
MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESSIONAL COMPLEX?
Some have claimed that Eisenhower intended to say “military-industrial-congressional
complex,” in order to explicitly call out Congress for its role in the growth of the military
industry, but that he struck out the final term at the last minute to avoid offending
lawmakers.
But according to James Ledbetter, author of Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower
and the Military-Industrial Complex, evidence points away from this theory: A draft of the
speech dated almost a month before it was delivered included the phrase “military-
industrial complex” intact.
Still, it was clear Eisenhower and his advisers did see at least some members of Congress
playing a role in the dangers the military-industrial complex posed to the public.
Eisenhower and his fellow conservatives also viewed the growth of the military-industrial
complex as part of a broader expansion of federal power that began with President Franklin
D. Roosevelt and the New Deal.
MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TODAY
Since Eisenhower delivered it in 1961, his farewell speech has come to be a touchstone for
those with concerns about unchecked military expansion, and the continuing close ties
between private military contractors, members of the military establishment and the
federal government.
The United States regularly spends far more on its military than any other country, though
its defense spending is usually a relatively small percentage of the nation’s total gross
domestic product (GDP), compared with some other countries.
According to a 2014 report by the Council of Foreign Relations, in the years after World War
II, national defense spending as a percentage of GDP ranged from a high of 15 percent in
1952 (during the Korean War) to a low of 3.7 percent in 2000. Military spending rose sharply
again the following year, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks led to the U.S. government
declaring a global war on terrorism.
Military expenditures, which are included in the discretionary spending category in the
federal budget, include a base budget for the U.S. Department of Defense as well as
additional spending on Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) and the Global War on
Terror (GWOT).
In fiscal year 2016, according to the Pew Research Center, the U.S. government spent some
$604 billion on national defense, which made up 15 percent of its total spending of about
$3.95 trillion.
By contrast, a two-year budget deal passed by Congress and signed by President Donald
Trump in February 2018 approved some $716 billion for defense spending in fiscal year
2019, compared with $605 in non-defense domestic spending.
During Cold-War
As a ‘‘peddler of crisis’’ benefited from trouble abroad, the complex justified its existence
during the Cold War by provoking fear of the Soviet menace and the need for vigilance in
order ‘‘to wage a war against cutbacks and not the Soviets’’ External dangers were allegedly
exaggerated to rationalize unnecessary weapons programs and ensure that the military
budget would continue to grow ‘‘regardless of whether there is war or peace’’ (Parenti
1988). In so doing, it promoted policies beneficial to itself but arguably detrimental to the
country as a whole. Thus the complex was able to predominate over other societal groups.
That is what a ‘complex’ is—a set of integrated institutions that act to maximize their
collective power’’. Military spending and weapons procurement are nonetheless key
elements of the MIC concept. Support for Rand Corporation and other Federally Funded
Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs) that design and test weapon systems and
devise war-fighting strategies increased by 30 percent between 1987 and 1991. The centers
receive Pentagon contracts without competitive bidding. Thus the military-industrial
complex undoubtedly colored much activity during the Cold War, particularly the structure
of defense spending and the shape of the country’s military capabilities.
Post–Cold War
At the end of the Cold War, American defense contractors bewailed what they called
declining government weapons spending. 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 directly and through industry groups such as the National Defense
Industrial Association, to spend more on military hardware. Pentagon contractor-funded
American think tanks such as the Lexington Institute and the Atlantic Council have also
demanded increased spending in view of the perceived Russian threat.
The end of the Cold War saw significant changes in defense spending politics under the
George H.W. Bush and Clinton administrations. Administrations have reduced military size
and reduced real or anticipated defense budget. Defense supporters made a number of
arguments to stall the post-Cold War military build-down as it gathered steam during the
first Bush administration. Sales of American military hardware to other nations also sharply
surged during this time. Formerly hostile to such arms transfers, liberal Democrats in
Congress increasingly support them as concerns over jobs at home and associated potential
economic advantages take precedence. Industrial policy and national security have become
intertwined. In 1992, the sale of 72 advanced F-15 aircraft to Saudi Arabia was particularly
noteworthy since it had the backing of both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton, who were
running for president at the time. Concern that the extensive military sector consolidation in
the 1990s would have a negative long-term effect on the capacity of the United States to
sustain its security once more raises troubling considerations. Concern that the extensive
military sector consolidation in the 1990s would have a negative long-term effect on the
capacity of the United States to sustain its security once more raises troubling
considerations. In contrast to the Soviet Union, not a single Cold War weapon platform line
had been shut down in the US. The same manufacturers continued to produce the same
armored vehicles, ships, and planes (or their incremental descendents). More than ten years
after the defense budget cuts began, government contracts continued to sustain 2.1 million
private defense industry workers, which is 400,000 more than at the Cold War's budgetary
low point. Legislators, lobbyists, and military contractors now have more opportunity to
gain lucrative funding for their pet projects because to the enormous defense budgets of
the post-9/11 era. The Pentagon frequently chooses its weapons based on employment
demands rather than strategic requirements.