The inexorable rise of the military-industrial complex

[Prospero]

Fascinating read from the new issue of The American Conservative.

Argues that whoever wins the election the real winners will be - as always - the military-industrial complex.

Remember that Eisenhower warned about this when he left office.


http://www.theamericanconservative.c...te-wins-again/

[Stavros]

This is a poor article that is more concerned to expose Romney's personal position as a weak one on military affairs. I was expecting an article on the way in which military spending, in the US domestic economy, and abroad, has grown exponentially since the Korean War, and why. The Cold War led to military developments which involved traditional hardware but also expanded into signals intelligence -in the process making the US a phenomenal pioneer of what today is seen as a key component of intelligence in general; as well as 'Psyops' which has led to the US to experiment in some morally dubious attempts at 'mind control'. The collaboration with foreign governments in the Cold War era, and since Osama bin Laden declared war on the US in 1996 has also fed into the important chunk of taxpayers federal pump priming of the military economy without which large parts of the US would be an economic wasteland. Why the US has felt a need to interfere in foreign countries is not discussed, even though it is one of the most important themes in American history, and why other people -state and non-state actors have such a relentless need to attack American targets -none of which is discussed in the article.

[Prospero]

"Why the US has felt a need to interfere in foreign countries is not discussed, even though it is one of the most important themes in American history, and why other people -state and non-state actors have such a relentless need to attack American targets -none of which is discussed in the article."

That is discussed plentifully elsewhere. it was not the purpose of the article which was to point to the way that candidate and administrations be they democrat or republican must always in the end support massive military sending.

[Stavros]

Precisely -flag up an issue, then decline to discuss it. If they wanted to write about the relative merits of Obama and Romney on defence issues, they only needed to change the title. In fact the title points to the more important issue than which of those two are likely to win the election and what it would mean for the defence industry. Rather like OMK's posts which are not really about substantive political issues but just an excuse to criticise presidential candidates. Its a pity people can't focus on what really matters, but this is the flaw in instant -and superficial- communications that people seem to thrive on.

[yodajazz]

I got a picture of this from a personal level. In a recent conversation, friend was talking about his job in a plant that makes defense related parts. He said that his plant sells a four inch length metal rod, to the military, for $400. I understand that super precision is needed. But how much does this business make, when they make tons of these rods?

The old 'missle sheild" idea, being raised yet again. Now supposedly Iran, is a nuclear missle threat?

"Why the US has felt a need to interfere in foreign countries is not discussed, even though it is one of the most important themes in American history, and why other people -state and non-state actors have such a relentless need to attack American targets -none of which is discussed in the article."

That is discussed plentifully elsewhere. it was not the purpose of the article which was to point to the way that candidate and administrations be they democrat or republican must always in the end support massive military sending.

We (the US) had to make an official law that it is illegal to kill the heads of foriegn nation. And it is my understanding, that it had to be altered, before we went after Saddam. Does anyone know about the current status of this law?

[Stavros]

We (the US) had to make an official law that it is illegal to kill the heads of foriegn nation. And it is my understanding, that it had to be altered, before we went after Saddam. Does anyone know about the current status of this law?

I think the key is that states, and the US is one, the UK another, want to be able to 'pursue their interests' in foreign policy without being held accountable to an international body, which is why the US has not participated in the UN International Court of Justice, or the International Criminal Court, and why Tony Blair gave immunity to the armed forces in the Iraq campaign and also to private 'security' firms, like Blackwater whose staff were often accused of shooting people on sight.

It is complicated, but my limited understanding is that there is an Executive Order issued by President Ford which prohibits assassination that was renewed by President Reagan -but doesn't define what is meant by 'assassination', so that if the US believes a 'command and control' centre from which attacks on the US or US forces are being issued (and presumably 'terrorist' attacks as well as conventional military ones) it can be attacked and destroyed, and if Col Qadhafi happens to be living there, or Saddam Hussein is believed to be inside it, then that's just his tough luck. A bomb was dropped on a house in Baghdad in 2003 -it wa supposed to fall on a restaurant where Saddam had been eating, although he had left by the time the bomb dropped, but I don't know how the US would have justified it had the bomb hit its target with Saddam inside. Because it would surely have been a 'targeted assassination'? On the other hand, as Saddam was believed to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, could it be argued that 'taking him out' was a strategic attack and not an assassination?

In addition to Executive Orders, there are Presidential Findings, which can authorise the CIA to operate in a field where it is in the interests of the USA to do so, but what it is that is authorised may not be disclosed.

Because he wasn't head of a state, Osama bin Laden I think, did not qualify as being exempt from assassination, but I really can't confirm it.

Some articles that discuss these issues are here:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...o_kill_qaddafi

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...ers/about.html

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepre...ive-Orders.htm

http://www.fas.org/irp/crs/98-611.pdf

https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools...6_1/01_FMS.htm

[hippifried]

We (the US) had to make an official law that it is illegal to kill the heads of foriegn nation. And it is my understanding, that it had to be altered, before we went after Saddam. Does anyone know about the current status of this law?

It's ignored whenever expedient to do so.

[yodajazz]

Fascinating read from the new issue of The American Conservative.

Argues that whoever wins the election the real winners will be - as always - the military-industrial complex.

Remember that Eisenhower warned about this when he left office.


http://www.theamericanconservative.c...te-wins-again/

This is actually a good article, that I just got around to reading. However I'm a little confused that the article is from a conservative source, and the writer of the article is a retired Airforce Col. If these are true conservative positions, I'll have to readjust my working definitions.

I heard on a news broadcast that certain Republicans in Congress are proposing a cut in the Food Stamps budget to fund Defense spending. From my limited observation a person receiving FS, would typically get lest that $2 a day. Is this a great country, or what?