The Impact of the Military Industrial Complex on the U.S. Economy

This activity will address module outcome 1. Upon completing this activity you will be able to:
• Analyze Military Challenges in a Global Environment (CO5)
As President Eisenhower warned, the Military Industrial Complex has situated itself in a very powerful position with regard to influencing policy making and ensuring significant financial gains from federal contracts. It is important to note that the “iron triangle” does in fact exist amongst many lobbying groups but in particular, the MiC has established a sophisticated system by which billions of dollars flow freely to a few businesses. They have become one of the leading lobbying powerhouses in recent years and have benefited greatly from the Iraq War as well as the Afghanistan War.
While it would seem that the MiC has a significant impact on the U.S. economy, the larger question would be to determine how many companies subsidiaries of the larger groups are actually (Lockheed-Martin, Halliburton
When you have completed your required readings for this module, you should be prepared to engage in the following discussion activity:
• Choose one of the companies listed as a top recipient of defense contracts (see Military-Industrial Complex (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site.). Please provide an argument as to whether the company you chose impacts the economy in a positive way, or if they positively impact the economics of a few, or whether the company provides a needed service addressing if its work is a reflection of the Iron Triangle dynamics.
• Propose a solution to prevent the level of influence of large corporations in the MiC (for example, increasing support for small businesses: see Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site.at the DOD Office of Small Business Programs).
Module 8: Module Notes: Security and Diplomacy- Unilateralism or Multilateralism
The role of foreign relations and security in the U.S. has a long-standing history of contradiction between the need for security and diplomacy. In particular, the President’s Cabinet Structure itself positions, in many ways, the Department of Defense against the Department of State. Both play critical roles in establishing the U.S. as a leading power in the world but accomplish their goals utilizing very different approaches. A prime example of this juxtaposition could be seen during the Bush Administration where Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State, Colin Powell and then Condoleezza Rice were at odds throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. The latter tends to pursue international relations from a “liberal” perspective, utilizing diplomacy and interdependence (ex: nongovernmental organizations (NGO’S), non-state actors, and non-military governmental personnel) to accomplish their goals. While the former, tends to lean towards a “realist” perspective, keeping security at the forefront of the mission. War strategy and security drive decision making (Frieden, 2013).
As stated previously, the fall of the USSR, led to the United States self nominating itself to the role as the lone global superpower. There are two schools of thought when it comes to international relations and the decision to go to war and issues around security. Unilateralism and Multilateralism. Please see their definitions below.
• Unilateralism
• Multilateralism
“a policy of taking unilateral (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. action (as in international affairs) regardless of outside support or reciprocity; also, advocacy of such a policy”
Relations tend to be influenced by the MiC and have oftentimes led U.S. policy driven by special interests.
Source: Merriam-Webster (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.
Links to an external site. Unilateralist approaches to foreign relations tend to be influenced by the MiC and has oftentimes led U.S. policy driven by special interests. This is not to say that the same does not occur with the State Department, but for the purpose of this discussion, we will focus on how the dichotomy between the two, tends to provide an advantage to the MiC. The Bush Administration was largely criticized for having invaded Iraq, unilaterally, in an effort to appease the MiC. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, was linked to the large company of Halliburton who has been awarded several exclusive contracts in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. Many would argue that his connections to the MiC influenced him to encourage the President to invade, never considering the long-term effects on foreign relations.
The Obama Administration took on very different approaches, many would say, the exact opposite of the Bush Administration, to foreign relations in an effort to mend those relationships harmed by the Iraq war. The realities of foreign relations, however, have continued policies and practices that are necessary in maintaining the international position of the U.S. as a superpower. The key in this is to understand that no one approach can accommodate for every situation and each administration must balance the long-term effects in their decision making. What can be deduced however, is the need to maintain an understanding of the power and potential negative effects of pandering to the MiC.
The National Security Strategy and the Military Industrial Complex (MiC) interweave frequently, but lawmakers must ensure that special interest groups and bureaucracy do not jeopardize U.S. military forces or its economy. In your discussion boards, we will study and analyze the Impact of the Military Industrial Complex to U.S. economy and also provide an analysis of the U.S. National Security Strategy.
References
The Military-Industrial Complex. (2017). Military-industrial complex speech text (Links to an external site.) Links to an external site. Retrieved from http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/military-industrial-complex-speech.asp#micmention
Frieden, Jeffry A., Lake, David A., and Schultz, Kenneth A. (2013). World Politics: Interests, Interactions, Institutions (2nd ed.). New York. W.W. Norton & Company.