Bureaucracy In The Military Industry

The military industrial complex was a term coined by President Eisenhower describing the growing relationship between the military and the government, mostly regarding the massive increase in military spending. Since the Cold War, the United States has continually expanded military spending, particularly the Department of Defense, which is currently 21 times more expensive than the State Department. The most common effect this has on members of Congress is the pressure that is put on them to appropriate funds for the DOD in the best way possible. The consequences of not being able appropriate the proper funds could result in job loss missed economic opportunities and ultimately not being reelected. Congress deals with funding projects such as the expensive F-35 which has yet to be made. Lockheed and Martin, the F-35s designers, applied a method called political engineering in order to get bipartisan support. This method includes using the 133,000 jobs across 45 states as leverage in order for state politicians to continue their support. Another deal congress has had to deal with is the Base Realignment and Closing Commissions (BRACs) which essentially

The United States (US) is constantly looking for ways to improve relations with other countries and to follow their National Security Strategy (NSS). To aid the US in analyzing different countries, the PMESII-PT is used as a formula to keep everyone on the same page. The PMESII-PT contains eight different variables which help the United States analyze how different countries can affect their National Security Strategy. These variables include: political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical terrain, and time. These variables can be used to help better understand the situation and most important aspects of any country. Japan is a major country that can have a large impact on US relations and build on the current NSS. Throughout this paper, the PMESII-PT variables are examined to help educate and show how Japan can affect the United States’ NSS. After reading this paper, one can gain knowledge on how Japan can have a large influence on US interests in the Pacific/ Asian Command (PACOM) region.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?” written by Stuart Bradin, Keenan Yoho, and Meaghan Keeler-Pettigrew, the authors argued that despite the U.S. military maintaining a position of global dominance “without peer” during conventional operations, it is not the ideal force against current and future threats. The authors claim that there are several negative factors arising due to the past sixteen years of war against several state and non-state elements, inferior cultural differences of government bureaucracy compared to commercial firms, and a misallocation of defense spending that leaves the US military waging war inefficiently while simultaneously losing technological dominance against current and future threats.

The military has been instrumental in the protection and development of U.S interests around the world. From the Revolutionary War, which established the United States as a nation, through the World Wars, which set up the U.S as one of the world super powers, to its current war on terror, the military has helped and protected U.S. interests around the world. During all these wars American soldiers have proudly served their country. Because of these wars America is famous throughout the world for military power and its protection of freedom in the world. Today the U.S is an international symbol of wealth and power; it has the largest Gross Domestic Product in the world as well as the strongest military. Yet even America falls prey to a

Military Industrial Complex is a new conjunction of an immense military establishment and large arms industry for American, while this did influence the immense military establishment and large arms industry of the sales of weapons and guns, economic and political and federal governments, and the cooperation between the government and the military. This was during 1961 while President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the dangers of the military-industrial complex in this farewell address. President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognized the power of the military-industrial complex, but he also believed that it was necessary to keep citizens safe from Hitler in WWII, which military-industrial complex refers to the combination of two powerful entities in the US.

In his farewell address to the nation in 1961, President Eisenhower warned the country of the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex” (Eisenhower 1961). Despite being a warning from so long ago, time has vindicated Eisenhower’s words. From the time of Eisenhower to present day, the United States has seen an unprecedented growth of the power, size, and influence of the military industrial complex. Today, the military industrial complex exerts great pressure on the foreign policy decision making process of the United States government. This sad state of affairs is the result of a multitude of factors, including iron triangles and issue networks, as well as the foreign policy bureaucracies that serve as actors within these paradigms.

Christopher Ball, pointed out in his lecturer at Iowa State University, dated on August 2nd, 2002 that “One use of the term MIC refers to any set of relationships between military policy and industrial production” . There is a continuing argument between politicians and the military in general, because both of them look from different angle to achieve the national security. Military consider that the national security achieved through creation a military force which able to protect all the state institutions in different circumstances. On the other hand, Politicians believe that there are many other elements might protect the national security, and thus can be achieved by different ways, for example, a strong economy maybe contribute the achievement of national security. The debate and controversy began among politicians and military and economists. James Graham points out that throughout the history, military power has been paramount and economic power a luxury.

For the Pentagon one of its top priorities is protecting the citizens and shores of the United States of America. In order to protect its borders, the Pentagon needs a National Security strategy that outlines how the US will protect its interests and allies while providing stability to certain regions of the world and how to prevent terror from reaching its shores. One national security expert, Dr. Thomas P.M. Barnett, wrote a book called The Pentagon’s New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century. His book describes his theory that he believes the US should follow to protect itself and its interests abroad, how the theory applies to future operational environments, and challenges, opportunities and threats within the theory.

Beckley holds that putting too much money into a countries defense budget may actually harm long-term economic growth. The United States has faces this dilemma in the past of balancing short-term defense initiative with long-term defense initiatives. The United States economy however has become industrialized to the point where it can produce effective military technology while dedicating a small percentile of their resources to defense. Superior economic efficiency lowers the cost of purchasing supplies and producing weapon, thereby leaving more money on the table to train and educate our soldiers to better handle the new technology at their disposal and how to conduct themselves on the battlefield. That is why the United States should remain cautious of hostile nation’s and groups, but they lack the resources to overpower a country such as the United States. Prime example would be the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviet Union’s planned economy and cold relation’s with countries outside the Soviet Bloc impeded them from affording to waste ammunition and supplies to train and test their own military apparatus. A notable story includes the Soviet MiG-21 fighter received repairs at triple the rate of many Western aircraft, and many ground vehicles such as the T-62 tank reportedly wore out after less than five hundred hours of use. Forcing the Soviet Union military to keep its weapons and vehicles in storage; using them seldom every other

The United States Military has proven to be one of the most effective organizations in the world. Numerous businesses and corporations throughout the years have modeled management practices of the military structure. This author will leverage seventeen years of military experience, and will provide abundant examples of the military’s management process. There are several similarities between the military and the business world’s managerial structure. The subsequent analysis will reflect how planning, leadership, organization, staffing, and controlling are modeled in the military as management tools, much like the functions for managing a business.

A strong military is an important factor of being a global power, other than for national security and deterrence, it also holds considerable coercive diplomatic power, typically through the threat of force (Wagner, 2014). In 2010, US military spending was larger than the next 17 highest budgets combined (The Economist, 2011). However with drastically increased military spending by China and Russia, and further cuts on US defence spending, US advantage in spending is predicted to be reduced to less than twice the Chinese and Russian budgets combined in 2020, down from three and-a-half times in 2011 (Nurkin, 2014). Such trends might be an indication of a reluctance to maintain military hegemony in the face of rising powers. However US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel defends the cuts, noting that the changes seek to address the domestic debt problem with the improbability of conventional wars of attrition in the current global landscape (Connor and Miklaszewski, 2014). The cuts include retiring older platforms, slowing the growth of newer ones, and a general reduction of forces. Importantly, even after the reduction, US forces would still be capable of the traditional wartime scenario of “fighting on two fronts”. Furthermore, the US still enjoys firm superiority in other areas such as technology and training, challenges both China and Russia seek to address (Nurkin,

Former American president Dwight Eisenhower warned the United States in his farewell speech about what he referred to as the Military- Industrial Complex, which refers to the United States’ economy becoming dependent on warfare and on the production of weapons. In order to fuel their economy, the States declared a war on terrorism and on bin-Laden shortly after the attacks.

American foreign policy has begun to tilt towards defense from Asian threats. According to Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., the navy and the air force desire for the majority of their services to be located in the Asia-Pacific region by 2020. The military desires these modifications in order to control China’s aggressive behavior. In the article “How to Deter China” by Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., he suggests that these changes, along with others, to boost American military are necessary in order to maintain Asian-Pacific peace. However, in order to confirm or deny his accusations, other theories must first be analyzed. Ikenberry’s institutional approach will be analyzed and compared to Krepinevich’s deterrence theory.

China and North Korea present the most significant potential security threats to the U.S. at this time. While the U.S. spends almost half the total global defense spending annually, China is growing at a rate of 17 percent annually on defense spending and demonstrate that they are willing to invest in building up their military capabilities to challenge us if needed. The U.S. defense spending on an annual basis focuses mostly on sustainment of existing infrastructure, while countries building their

National security is paramount to the protection of America and its constituents. It is imperative, particularly as the world becomes more global, that nation security maintains the integrity of the entire system. Technology, due in part to globalization, is becoming more ubiquitous. Tools that can ultimately destroy mankind, through international trade, are becoming more widespread. Through national security, American and the rest of the world can better protect themselves against the influences of war. Through strong leadership and collaboration, all nations, irrespective of location can proper and succeed.