The Influence Of Military Industrial Complex On Foreign Policy Decision Making

The American “way of war” can be seen politically through the evolution of military policy as political perspectives changed. Post-World War II reveals primary and consistent policies that lead American military policymakers to avoid major international conflict. Coined the Cold War, Americans began waging war

The United States from the Cold War and into the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) continues to face challenges in translating military might into political desires due to its obsession with raising an army, electing politicians and assembling a diplomatic corp that continue to gravitate towards State-to-State engagements that if not rectified could lead to substantial delays in fighting terrorism and non-terrorist adversaries or worse total failure of the United States Military’s ability to properly carry out it’s politicians objectives due to being blindsided.

In a 2015 article, “Is U.S. military becoming outdated?”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 recent occurrences such as the 11th September 2001, epitomized the important exogenous watershed which influenced the American Government’s foreign policy decision- making. Apart from the exogenous dynamics which have made the bulk of judgments in the policy of U.S. foreign matters, there is also American government endogenous aspects. The elements include the Legislative body, the president, the public opinion Americans, and the bureaucracy which greatly influence the decision making concerning the foreign policy (Peterson, 1994).

Recently, and especially since the 1990s, a popular conception of the world is that the age of empires and superpowers is waning, rapidly being replaced by a kind of global community made up of interdependent states and deeply connected through economics and technology. In this view, the United States' role following the Cold War is one of almost benign preeminence, in which it seeks to spread liberal democracy through economic globalization, and, failing that, military intervention. Even then, however, this military intervention is framed as part of a globalizing process, rather than any kind of unilateral imperialist endeavor. However, examining the history of the United States since nearly its inception all the way up to today reveals that nothing could be farther from the truth. The United States is an empire in the truest sense of the word, expanding its control through military force with seemingly no end other than its own enrichment. The United States' misadventure in Iraq puts the lie to the notion that US economic and military action is geared towards any kind of global progression towards liberal democracy, and forces one to re-imagine the United States' role in contemporary global affairs by recognizing the way in which it has attempted to secure its own hegemony by crippling any potential threats.

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.

How to ensure that the "military-industrial complex" does not endanger American liberties and the democratic process. This can be done by the statesman, according to Eisenhower, it is their job "to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old,, within the principles of our democratic

In George Washington’s Farewell Address, the first President declared to avoid “entangling alliances” and engaging internationally to not get drawn into war, which the US had followed unless it fell under certain circumstances. These certain circumstances entailed social demands and outbursts for a transition to an interventionist and almost bellicose ideology that drew in the United States to engage in foreign wars and policies.

This paper discusses the War Powers Act/Resolution of 1973. Though this resolution was passed by Congress to give it more say in declaration of war and the deployment of American troops to foreign countries promising hostilities, this aim has hardly been achieved. The War Powers Act remains as one of the most contentious legal provisions in the American constitution and has been the subject of several debates and interpretations. More often than not, one finds American soldiers actually engaged in hostilities in foreign lands without the explicit or even implied support of the US Congress. This paper discusses why this is so and hypothesizes that realpolitik has significantly contributed to the practical ineffectiveness of the War Powers Act. Structurally, this paper will first proceed to present a brief history of the War Powers Act and its intended purpose. Afterwards, the linkage between realpolitik and the Act will be discussed.

In “Questing for Monsters to Destroy,” John Mueller, an American political scientist, says American policymakers put, “a truly massive emphasis on exquisite theorizing and on defense expenditures,” because these policymakers, “became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort,” of actual military action (p 117). Continuing, he argues that American decision makers constantly saw Russia’s actions as bigger threats than they really were and acted accordingly, which resulted in the U.S. spending money and troops to fight wars they should have never been involved in.

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.

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).

The evolution of U.S. Foreign policy following the Civil War is continually evolving. During the Civil War years, America had an economy that was based on agriculture. Farmers were growing cotton, tobacco and sugarcane. Slaves from Africa worked on these enormous plantations. . At the time, America was in an election year with Lincoln as the candidate of the Republican Party claiming he was going to abolish slavery. When Lincoln won the election he did just that, immediately there after 7 states declared their independence from the US, they were then known as Confederate States. After a few years 4 more states

The military industrial complex was a term coined by Eisenhower in this speech. It has been defined as the intrenching of the military into the government of a country. In this he feared that having a perpetual military force, and even worse a constantly active military could infringe the rights of Americans. How would this happen? Well, in America, there is not a strict democracy. America is a representative democracy. This means that Americans do not vote for all of their decisions. Switzerland is a true democracy. They vote in every election for everything. However, in America citizens elect people to be in charge of their voting. Americans give up power to politicians so people don’t need to worry about laws and regulation. Because of this Americans allow them to have the keys to their money, powers and the future of their nation. This is a great

In “Questing for Monsters to Destroy,” John Mueller, an American political scientist, says American policymakers put “a truly massive emphasis on exquisite theorizing and on defense expenditures,” because these policymakers, “became mesmerized by perceived threats that scarcely warranted the preoccupation and effort,” of actual military action (p 117). He argues that American decision makers constantly saw Russia’s actions as bigger threats than they really were and acted accordingly, which resulted in the U.S. spending money and troops to fight wars they should have never been involved in.