Military Industrial Complex

On 26 July 1950, President Harry Truman approved a multi-million dollar military assistance package designed to help the French defeat a strong communist movement in French Indochina. The package included $15 million worth of military equipment and a small number of American military advisors assigned to supervise the flow of tanks, plans, artillery, and other equipment.1 By 1954, the United States government had provided 80% of the war supplies used by the French in Indochina which equated to about $3 billion.2 This marked the beginning of the United States involvement in Southeast Asia and the expansion of the military-industrial complex in America. This paper will explore the role the American military-industrial complex played as part

The United States is a militaristic country because of the military budget, the military’s expansion into civilian areas, and military culture. The large and increasing budget of the military is an example of U.S. militarism. According to National Priorities

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?”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.

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.

After unraveling of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, fears of war breaking out between the major powers of the United States and the Soviet Union were greatly reduced. Numerous commentaries, reports, and studies arose out of the question of what to do with the excess U.S. forces, and how to reshape them for a new era (Snider & Carlton-Carew, 1996). Since the birth of the United States, the military has been an important part of the United States. The US military has been a fundamental part of foreign policy, including fostering democracy, establishing rule of law, and assisting with economic development in territories allied with the U.S. (Ludema, 2007).

With Trump’s election this year, his rhetoric of “Making America Great Again” and therefore revitalizing our military will soon become a reality. Trump has formally requested a reappropriation of funds; around $54 Billion, towards the US military. Part of Trump’s campaign promises had to do with making the military more robust; ensuring America’s title of militarily strongest in the world. In order to achieve this goal. Trump’s federal government has the option of many different aspects of the military to focus on. Of these, funding weapons of mass destruction, cyber security, and further military research and development prove themselves as most relevant in the contemporary military.

In an effort to provide protection for our international interest our political leadership point of view is to show militaristic prowess. Mr. Bacevich has mentioned several examples regarding excessive spending within the Department of Defense (DOD) that dwarfs those of America’s closest allies. Also noted, Mr. Bacevich explained that the Navy maintains several large attack aircraft carriers; however, in the battle fleets of the world, there is no ship even comparable to a Nimitz-class carrier. The question is “why do we continue to move away from the general principle to maintain the minimum force required.” I think because we are living in a capitalist society the power of money is at the forefront. The DOD is an industrial military conglomerate.

However, Eisenhower is worried that the military is expanding at an alarming rate and its power may be misused and bring about the wrong intentions. He supports his claim of its quickening growth and investment, stating that “three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment,” and how “we annually spend on military security more than the net income of all US corporations.” This use of numbers and statistics grabs the attention of Americans and makes his claim appear more factual. This device allows for Eisenhower

By slow stages, large and sustained military expenditures produced an enduring Military-Industrial Complex with the self-serving consequences suggested by the World War II economy and, more seriously, with the potential for perpetuating the forces of modern warfare which had provided for the initial growth of such a complex (90).

a) Quote: “Until the latest of our world conflicts [meaning WWII] the United States had no…” Finish the quote.

Robert McNamara directed a disastrous, failed war that was very costly. He visioned an “active management” approcah. He wanted a Pentagon where the secretary would have his own large staff that would provide civilian advice. This advice would only allow the secretary to be the only one able to assess alternatives. This would also allow him to be the only one making choices when it comes to defining budgets, foreign policy, military strategy, and integrating forces and weapons. Budgets in the 50s were done by services instead of missions and used estimates that had an unclear validity. There was no way that duplication nor functional gaps could be identified. Concerns arose from discrepancies about the defense posture on whether it had rational basis for the allocation of resources. McNamara also proposed a system analysis that calculated the defense needs, but it had its limits. The military was caught off guard with this and programs that he did not agree with were seen as not to be cost-effective. McNamara’s agenda also included acquisition reforms. This

The three chapter is The Military Crisis.The endless War on Terror represents a clear over-extension of American capability and if it continued ,it will expedite decline. The author think that From the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we can get a wrong result "The small war preparation is very brief, but the long-term consequences are serious,expanded the empire, the army should have more use of reserves and apply for enlistment. Although the United States has advanced weapons, Iraq assembled improvised explosive devices have made havoc on the world's best-equipped army. Bacevich believes that constructive strategy in foreign policy must recognize that the US military has both limited resources and limited impact. Amry leaders have tended

There is no doubt that military industry is one of the fundamental pillars of supporting national security of countries. It is maintaining their independence, security and development. As for the elements of national security Is vary from one country to the other, because each country has different circumstances and characteristics. However, there are common denominators among the countries in national security in general, and national security outlines are about to be similar. The United States is based on stable principles of security strategy, which adapt according to dictate attitudes, Variables, and developments. The economy plays an important role in formulating the US Strategy. Focusing on the US doctrine, is guiding to discover the

This would be connected to the notion of Milbus which came to mean the undue penetration of the military in the national economy as dubbed by the Pakistani military analyst Ayesha Siddiqa who explained, building on the theory by Alavi, that in societies that see the military as “moral” force in society, players would look to ally with them in the maintenance of business ties with the state, and because of their prestige there would little incentive from the government for oversight allowing the unchecked development of patronage networks (2007: 14-5). In the case of Syria, it was not surprising that one would see an expansion of milbus there given the level of prominence that the military had in the nation. During the 1970’s and 80’s Assad