Military Contractors

The US Army professionalized after the Civil War . It started to provide security to all USA society. In addition, the Army has five required characteristic which made it a profession. The most important characteristic is trust of society. Other characteristics are military expertise, honorable service, esprit de corps and stewardship of the profession .

Also explored is the reasoning behind the MIC continued involvement in US foreign policy, which includes the role of military contractors in financing policy planning organizations, the relationship between the military contractors and the Defense Department, and the control of executive branch authority in decision making, for instance, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), particularly during foreign policy crises. Where when founded in 1997 it had little to do in policymaking, following the attacks of 9/11 PNAC moved up in ranking as in response to 9/11, the Bush Administration exhausted their long-time recommendations for full-blown militarization which included overthrowing the regime in Iraq. Following such examination, institutional and economic power is in significant alignment with the military industrial complex, to the extent that military funding is provided by numerous, corporate, executive branch, Congressional and bureaucratic

At the height of the war in 2007, there were about 190,000 armed and unarmed contractors compared to 160,000 US troops. During the war, these contractors served various purposes such as logistical support and the security of convoys and bases. Moreover, “ about 199,783 contractors were employed by the US in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2010”, which truly demonstrates how far the contracting business has come in the United States in less than a

During the 1950’s we see an economic boom in America. A large amount of this growth has to do with the money made by Corporations with Military Contracts making goods and supplies for the United States Military. With the Cold War beginning the push for new invention in aviation, rocket propulsion, energy, and even automobiles was at the forefront of national defense. Industrial giants like Boeing, General Dynamics, and Raytheon received 60% if their income from the Defense Department. Ten percent of the domestic (GDP) was from military spending. With fears of falling behind the Soviet Union, gaining any edge in innovation was important. The government even funneled millions of dollars into American Universities for scholarships and research

It became apparent very quickly that this was not an isolated example; that this was not an isolated problem. Nalder found it in one job after another from Patrick Air Force base in Florida, to fort Leonard Wood Army Base in Missouri. American Eagle’s military home-building projects had fallen behind schedule. In Jacksonville, Arkansas, home of Little Rock Air Force Base, local Journalist John Hoffheimer reported that civilians were suffering from American Eagle’s actions as well. The first indication there were any problems, occurred when there were rumors that some contractors were being paid late or perhaps not being paid at all. Most of these were small companies, which was putting them in a financial bind. There was one sub-contractor filed for bankruptcy. Dozens of other settle for small percentages of what they owed. However, there was one that held out, Tommy Austin, Cement business. They were contracted to pour the foundations of more that 200 homes for American Eagle. His lawyers are still trying to get all the money he says he was promised. In the end, the Air Force actually bears some of the responsibility because they did not have tight controls over this process Films Media Group. (2009, June 30).

During the 2018 Senate budget accountability meeting, Senator Bernie Sanders says, “since 1995 Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies have paid nearly $3 billion in fines or related settlements for fraud or misconduct- $3 billion collectively. Yet those three companies received about $800 billion of defense contracts over the past 18 years” (Senate). All of these companies are private defense companies that design and manufacture weapons for the Department of Defense if the money if followed. These defense companies have paid 0.375 percent in fines for fraud compared to the amount they were given by the Department of Defense over eighteen

Zakheim and Kadish explain two decades ago, there were more than twenty prime contractors competing for defense contracts while today the government relies on just six contractors to build its defense systems. Zakheim and Kadish state, “The system largely forgoes competition on price, delivery and performance and replaces it with a kind of “design bureau” competition”. The report explains that firms such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin have operated in collaboration on several projects such as the Air Force’s next generation bomber (Zakheim & Kadish, 2008). Collaboration of this nature suggests cooperative equilibrium between the firms to enhance their mutual payoff of outbidding competitors. With the defense market on the downturn pending major budget cuts over the next several years, more collaboration strategies are possible for firms to remain competitive. The existing procurement system encourages bargaining among the government and bidding firms. When budgets are allocated generously, demand is high and firms can set their prices higher. Budget cuts decrease demand and increase bargaining between buyer and seller. Security Industry reports budget deficits subject contracts to greater

Following World War II, President Eisenhower coined the term "military-industrial complex" to describe the relationship between private arms manufacturers, the armed forces and the government. This coalition collaborated to bloat the American military budget in order to make money for the companies. Corruption in the government contributed to allowing this. The

On January 17, 1961 President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his farewell address to the nation, his final public speech as President of the United States. As such it was his last opportunity to address the nation, on any subject of his choice, with the authority, prestige and preeminence that comes with the office of President of the United States. His choice, what he termed the Military Industrial Complex, was perhaps something that at the time did not register in the mind of the average American as a priority when placed along the topics of the Communism, the Cold War and nuclear war. Yet, as it turns out the issue regarding the Military Industrial Complex and Eisenhower's warnings about it have outlasted the fears of the mid 20th century.

The Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies (MCVARA) is a subcommittee under The Appropriations Committee. The Appropriations Committee reviews and approves budget requests (funding legislation) from MCVARA. Once the funding legislation is reported to and approved by the Senate, the Senate works with the House to have the legislation approved and passed by the beginning of the fiscal year which falls on October 1st.

The Military Industrial Complex is the circular relationship between the Department of Defense, Congress, and large military corporations. The corporations give large campaign contributions to members of congress. Then, Congress gives funding to the Department of Defense who then contracts the corporations. This is a beneficial and profitable relationship for all parties involved, creating a powerful incentive for the continuance of war. In 1961, President Eisenhower warned the American people of the dangers of this relationship, calling it a threat to democracy.

The topic for this paper will be to consider the role of civilian contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and where applicable investigate how they were utilized in joint operations in both theaters. Also, the research will extend to the expectations for civilian contractors versus that of their military counter parts. The tentative title is, “Civilian Contractors and Their Impact on Joint Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.” This may need to be focused a bit more once exploration and study is done as the approach may be too broad, but only investigation and application of resources will determine whether the scope needs to be narrowed or not.

The realistic comparison that connects to monopolistic and oligopolistic structure of defense contractors resulting in reason for shutdown for cost efficient purposes rather than competition (Hayden et al., 2010). This cost efficient purpose then turns to intergroup relations between Congress, the President and the leading large-scale power-bloc defense contractors while during government shutdown continued to run while other DOD agencies suffered from furlough (Brass, 2014; Hayden et al., 2010; McPhail, 1991; Sy (2013). In perspective, the top five defense contractors awarded DOD contracts for year 2007 were Lockheed Martin Corporation - $27B, Boeing Company - $22B, Northrop Grumman - $14B, General Dynamics - $14B, and Raytheon - $11B respectfully (Hayden et al., 2010). Based on McPhail (1991), individual-group discontinuity is explicit contrast between intergroup relations, where Brass (2014) and Sy (2013) debated on intergroup relations distinction between government shutdown and debt limit impasse. According to Brass (2014), government shutdown is the lack of group performance, intergroup relations, and communication

Observers do not need to look far for the signs of a military-industrial complex that has become too powerful and involved in politics. The Army has repeatedly attempted to halt the production and spending on new tanks. The Air Force has spent almost $400 billion on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, nearly double the initial estimate. If the relationship between civilian and military leaders is to be mended, leadership decisions must not be influenced by the military-industrial

Since January 2014, I have retired from the military/federal government position where I spent 36 plus years with 20-plus years in leadership positions. I was trained and performed duties in Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) position as Facility Manager, Carpentry/Brick Mason Specialist, Supply, Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic, Instructor and Human Resources