Alright, so America's terrified. As we discussed in the last post, we are, apparently, building to a war with Islam. Now obviously we aren't going to invade the country with the largest Muslim population, Indonesia. But why not go after our longtime enemies, the Islamic theocracy Iran?
Remember the buildup to Iraq? The weapons of mass destruction? Saddam Hussein was a madman on a hair trigger, building up stockpiles of weapons to destroy us at any moment. Remember the rhetoric? We had to invade. Now, before the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud.
Well, it's happening again. America has reached a level of paranoia, desperation, and anger we haven't seen since shortly after 9/11. And we've been told for the past several years that Iran has been trying to create nuclear weapons (a claim which is dubious at best).
Take a look at the major papers. Editorials on Iran come in three flavors: 1. We need to invade Iran, because they have nuclear weapons. 2. We need to invade Iran because they're a dangerous theocracy oppressing its people. 3. We probably shouldn't invade Iran, but the war is inevitable. That's the best we get: it's bad, but going to happen.
Fine. Inevitably, war with Iran will happen. So let's do some Poli. Sci. 101 here: who stands to benefit from a war with Iran? The same people who benefited from Iraq and Afghanistan: the military-industrial complex.
Wait, don't go! This isn't some conspiracy theory! In fact, there's no conspiracy at all. It's just an economic fact: weapons manufacturers, equipment manufacturers, independent contractors like Halliburton and KBR benefit economically from war. In fact, wars are generally good for the economy: look at World War II and the Depression.
President Eisenhower's farewell speech was unusual, as presidential farewells go. Rather than the modern self-congratulatory "History will vindicate me" speech we've seen in the past few decades, Eisenhower left us with a warning.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Remember that Eisenhower was a Republican (by modern terms he's to the left of many Democrats, of course, but America's steady move to the right is a topic for another post). Not exactly an arch-liberal. And a former general. An incredibly pro-military person, his administration was responsible for the Korean War as well as a great deal of secret anti-communist action in South America and elsewhere. And yet even he feared the military-industrial complex.
And the complex has more power than ever before. The war in Iraq during the Bush administration is a perfect example. Dick Cheney was a former Halliburton president. Halliburton (and its subsidiary KBR) were responsible for the infrastructure supporting American troops in Iraq. They overcharged for their services, completely failed our troops on every level (and were even responsible for some non-combat deaths), and were never held responsible. Billions of government dollars went to them. The same goes for private military contractors like Blackwater (now Xi), and domestic manufacturers such as Boeing and G.E.
(An aside on private military contractors: they are a terrible idea. First, mercenary armies are, historically, unstable. Second, providing a profit motive for war tends to create more wars. We see something similar in states with large numbers of private prisons: prison industry lobbyists tend to lead to much tougher sentencing laws, Three Strikes, etc. There's a third, and vitally important reason as well. The definition of a government is, basically, the monopoly holders on force in a region. By privatizing military force we are making out government, well, not our government. Instead, we begin to create what is, effectively, a corporate government. See also: Coca-Cola's private army protecting their interests in South America).
In short, we have made war profitable. War's worth money now. So is it any surprise that we're involved in two wars, about to start a third?
And so American citizens continue to pay for corporate power, our blood and money going to those who truly control our country.
I agree with everything except your statements about privatized military contractors. You make the same mistake I see a lot of socialists/lefists make: you relentlessly criticize the government for murder and tyranny through massively-oversized military forces (good), but then cannot tolerate the idea of privatizing them. It's like this:
ReplyDelete"The US Army is a murderous death machine engaged in a massive free-for-all in the pursuit of profit."
"Then why not prevent the US Army from forcibly holding itself as the only military force in the country?"
"Gasp! If government isn't controlling the army, it'll be a murderous death machine engaged in a massive free-for-all in the pursuit of profit!"
People criticize the government's handling and then balk at the idea of taking it out of their hands. It's the same for a lot of things, like guns; leftists complain when police abuse their power (rightly), and then become even MORE upset when you suggest that if government is fucking up by giving arms out only to power-hungry murderers, maybe you should challenge that monopoly.
In general, the principle applies to the whole situation here. As long as government has its finger in every American pie, so to speak, then corporations will continue to use it for money and power. The classic libertarian quote "the welfare state is a warfare state" isn't always true, but here it really is. When government is actively involved in regulating and taxing and funding and propping up the military/industrial complex, as it must to meet your somewhat protectionist goals here, the influence is unavoidable.
If government were to take a ragingly libertarian approach and leave these industries (and all industries) alone, neither helping nor hurting, then the massive amount of influence they would have over our senators and congressmen would disappear.
As long as government decides where money goes to and what the military/industrial complex can and can't do, not only will it continually grant them a free pass as it has for decades now, but that complex will wield a dangerous amount of control over the very institution set up to control it.
Actually I'm not attacking the government for "murder and tyranny through massively-oversized military forces." The government SHOULD be the main holder of force, that's what makes them the government. As I said, it's the very definition of the state. (Not the sole holder of force, however, let's not get into 2nd Amendment issues here).
ReplyDeleteIndeed, the issue isn't even that private military contractors exist. I believe that PMCs (and a privatized prison industry, but, again, another matter) are inherently a bad idea. However, their problem in Iraq wasn't simply their presence, but their relative lack of regulation.
And that is really the big problem with PMCs in the current government. Government has moved so heavily toward deregulation since the Reagan era that we aren't actually monitoring the PMCs and controlling them the way we ought to be. The issue isn't that government is monopolizing force (in the case of police abuses, which are an issue), or even wholly that they're giving the right to use force to private companies, the issue is that they're then failing to regulate these companies.
This same air of deregulation has led to a number of corporate abuses, and directly led to the current financial crisis, the BP oil spill, and the various other economic and environmental disasters caused by a totally unregulated free market.
Creating a more libertarian environment is, to quote deregulation king Ronald Reagan, "the problem, not the solution."
Instead, the solution is to rein in abuses at every level through increased regulation.
The flaw I see in your argument is this: The government has failed to regulate the market, therefore we need to take power away from the government and give it back to the market. (See your last paragraph). And it is true that the government has given a free pass to the military/industrial complex. But creating even more private power isn't going to solve that, it's just going to compound the problem.
In short: we don't need to get government out of business, we need to get government to do its job. The job of a government is to protect the powerless from the powerful, and instead they have been acting in collusion with America's greatest economic powers since the late 1800s.
I also do not agree that trying to take government out of business will limit business' influence on government. Candidates still need to get elected, after all.
Now I do think there are some legitimate arguments to be made in favor of limiting government military power. Police abuse is rampant, we're fighting unnecessary wars, and often violating the Constitution doing so (see: Guantanamo, Bagram, etc.). And here private powers can do a great deal of good. Not in for-profit corporations competing with the government (because, while free-market principles would dictate that the competition would create a better outcome, in reality this doesn't seem to work). But, instead, in private citizens being aware of what the government is doing, and being active in opposing it.
Here we come all the way back to the second post I made in this blog: the best way to prevent abuses by government and big business is simply to be aware of them, and actively stay informed.
Thanks so much for your comment!