Rebecca's Thoughts

The Military Industrial Complex (MIC), although not fully coined until Eisenhower in the early 1960s, has always had a place in society and likely always will. When looking back in time it is easy to see the relationships between citizens, leaders/policymakers, and the military and how these groups have interacted and reacted with one another. This is especially relevant today with the rise of technology and the overlap between civilian and military technology and its implementation internationally. Things like radios, cellphones, banking technologies, and educational systems were all at one point created by or attributed to military developments and now have a permanent place in society. Further interactions can also take place through media and the connection between the MIC and other notions like the Military Entertainment Complex, and other forms of propaganda. These concepts not only keep the MIC alive but also perpetuate it and allow it to continue to grow. This brings up concerns about war-making and the impact that such actions can have on societies at large.

Eisenhower saw and warned of the MIC as being weary of “unwarranted influences” regarding policy (foreign and domestic), the economy, and the political process. The MIC can be described as the relationship between the government, the military, and the business who make things or contribute to the military (technology, people, weapons, etc.). This functions as somewhat of a win-win situation as all parties taking part in the MIC benefit in some capacity from it. This isn’t necessarily a good thing and can lead to actions like corruption, warmongering/war-making, and an imbalance of power between the military, government, and enterprise. The MIC can also contribute to good things, like the development of new non-militant technologies in fields like communication, medicine, transportation, automation, and research. These are all things that people take for granted and also contribute to conveniences and generally better lives for people.

Although not anything new, concepts and ideas surrounding the MIC have evolved over time. In Keith Nelson’s Essay “The Warfare State” we see that the fear of the MIC and war-making has been around since Ancient Greece and the plights discussed by Aristotle and Polybius[1]. Whether it relates directly with the ruler starting wars, or the merchants with an affinity for war, this idea can be found throughout history and isn’t isolated in one particular part of the world. In Nelson’s essay it is also noted that in the Ludlow Amendment (1938) there were efforts after the First World War to take peace making out of the hands of the government, as many were afraid that governments would again force citizens into fighting another war[2]. This amendment also made fighting a defensive act rather than an offensive one, allowing citizens to directly partake in the decision on whether the country (the United States) should go to war.

The second indication of the growing MIC found in Nelson’s essay can be seen in the anti-militarism movement[3]. During the Age of Enlightenment, predominantly in England, many scholars were critical of the military and its role in society. Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw the military as “the pest which depopulated Europe[4]” and Immanuel Kant said:

“[The military] threaten other states continually with war by their readiness to appear always ready for war; they incite states to excel in the number of armed men, to which no limit is set; and when by the costs it involves, peace becomes even more burdensome than a short war, armies themselves furnish the reason for aggressive war in order to get rid of this burden[5].”

Although the anti-militarism movement somewhat stopped during the industrialization and the growth of ideas like Social Darwinism, it is explained by Nelson that the movement never really stropped as people were consistently hostile towards the military as seen after both World Wars. Examples like the U.S.’s opposition to Universal Military Training, disarmament in the 1920s, and the banning of military establishments in Germany and Japan[6] further antagonize the military and would ideally limit actions conducted by military actors. In hind-sight theses actions did little to limit war from happening, but it would be safe to say that anti-military sentiment did continue to happen, especially in the height of Vietnam and other wars like Iraq and Afghanistan.

The third idea presented by Nelson is the idea of “the businessman as the provocateur[7].” This idea is more emblematic of Eisenhower’s notion of the MIC as the role of business is crucial in further development and industrialization of the military. Much like the first idea presented by Nelson, this idea has also been around for what seems like forever. In the essay we see a quote from Aristophanes which says “[i]f any merchant, selling spears or shields, would fain have battles to improve his trade, may he be seized by thieves and eat raw barley[8].” This quote brings forth the relationship between the military and business and perpetuates the idea presented by Nelson of the businessman promoting, and exploiting war to further business objectives. This idea can be a slippery slope as not every businessman is a warmonger in the same way that not every government is not actively seeking out wars to fight in. In the essay, Nelson explains that in the 1900-17s there was a trend in Europe that socialists were the ones seeking reform and that capitalists were often the ones blamed for the “rampant militarism” happening[9]. Similarly in the U.S. the middle class were the proponents for peace whereas the government and the military were responsible for war. The essay also emphasizes the relationship between retired government officials and “armament firms” and the almost government official to defence contractor pipeline. Although the essay was written in 1970, this is still something seen today and was especially prevalent when it comes to Dick Cheney and his time as U.S. Secretary of Defence. In the essay Nelson really emphasizes the idea of the capitalist being blamed for perpetuating the MIC, quoting C. Wright Mills: “American capitalism is not in considerable part a military capitalism[10].”

Nelson’s essay also depicts some other schools of thought that are more anti-political and anti-military interpretations, and at times seem more attune to conspiracy theories rather than solid, evidence based approaches. These ideas were seen in the 1930s and the rise of FDR’s New Deal, and the notion that it would be one step further into making the U.S. into a fascist stronghold that “lets themselves slide into a war[11].” Other ideas were along the lines of the U.S. turning into a “garrison state” that “specializes in violence” in which the government, and businesses are subordinate to the military and its whims[12].  This line of thought also tends to villainize associations like interest groups, lobby groups, and think tanks as they are seen as being a consolidation of power promoting and supplying war and the military.

In contemporary times the MIC isn’t necessarily growing in preparation for war, but rather the quest to exert or seize control. This can be seen in an American context through the exorbitant amount of money being spent on things like military defence contracting, research and development, and a large volunteer standing military. This also begs the question of why the U.S. military is so expansive, and why countries go to war. Some things that first come to mind are the exploitation of resources, particularly oil, but also things like monetary exploits, the exertion of power, fights over ideology, and just/unjust reclamation of land and/or “culture.” The power of the MIC only becomes heightened when control is lost, and strength of a country is put into question. This can be seen during the Cold War and the relationship between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The Cold War not only perpetuated the MIC but also accelerated it. This was seen in the technological competition between the two countries and the developments in missile technology, but also the space race and space exploration. The Cold War also was the reason for the wars in Vietnam, Korea, and Afghanistan, all events that require more soldiers, guns, tanks, and other weapons. This increases the need for these items, boosting production and output. This also furthers the need for funding and money given to the cause, and the U.S. government was more than happy to supply the funds for these events. This further instilled military funding in the country and heightened the need for more funds being put towards the military, exponentially growing the year-over-year budget.

The Cold War and the quest for a larger military also increased the role of military defence contracting in the U.S. This is seen in the role of companies like Lockheed Martin and Halliburton (KBR) and the power they hold in military and political circles. This is especially prevalent in the aforementioned government/military official to defence contractor pipeline and the possibility of collusion or pork barrel politics that could/does occur. Pork barrel politics also isn’t a new idea but is especially susceptible to happen in industries like defence contracting as the knowledge required is very specific and there are only a handful of people with it. 

Appearances also play a role in the MIC and can impact the way governments contribute to the MIC. The U.S. is an excellent example as the average American likely sees a link between nationalism or patriotism and the military. They would perceive the military as being an institution of patriotism and thus view the military as being apart of the “American Experience.” An example of this could be the idea of being “anti-military” is “anti-American,” making the military and the MIC a way of life, akin to what Eisenhower said about the MIC acting as a “spiritual influence.” All of these actions further instil the MIC in the country’s politics and culture. This is also conducive to what Ellul said about propaganda and the idea of the MIC becoming a “style of life[13].” This culture around the military is also a form of “sociological propaganda” and of “influence [that] aims much more at an entire style of life or even one particular course of behaviour[14].”

With an organization as large and dominant as the military in U.S. society, there is an inherent degree of propaganda being produced. This is likely in the form of the Military Entertainment Complex and the evolution of propaganda from something made exclusively by the government and the military to the inclusion of the entertainment industry. This can date back to World War II and the OWL with the Motion Picture Production Code and the act of self-censorship but also framing movies in a way that makes the military look good. This is something that is still prevalent today and can be seen in movies like Top Gun (1986)[15] and Zero Dark Thirty (2012)[16] in the interactions between the U.S. defence agencies and every-day people through popular media[17]. This is also prevalent when it comes to how the military markets itself through to recruitment. In a 2019 marketing campaign, the U.S military made their advertisements reminiscent of video games like Call of Duty[18]. Whether it’s films or advertisement, these would be considered to be “traditional” forms of propaganda proposed by Jowett and O’Donnell as role of the government is to affect the behaviour of a population by changing or re-affirming their actions in a formal setting and “shaping the perception” of a population through language and images[19].

The MIC is something that has always been around in one way or another, but has evolved and grown beyond what Eisenhower first warned about. This is due to the exponential growth of the military seen during the Cold War and the technology and money developed and devoted to winning the war. This accelerated the MIC and ingrained it into U.S. society and culture. Due to this development the way propaganda is delivered has also changed. The MIC likely wont go away any time soon, and therefore it is important to understand it and its role in society.

---

[1] Keith L. Nelson, “The ‘Warfare State’: History of a Concept.” The Pacific Historical Review, 40, no. 2 (May 1971): 127-143. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.uleth.ca/stable/3638293 (p. 129)

[2] Ibid., (p. 131)

[3] Ibid., (p. 131)

[4] Keith L. Nelson, “The ‘Warfare State’: History of a Concept.” The Pacific Historical Review, 40, no. 2 (May 1971): 127-143. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.uleth.ca/stable/3638293 (p. 131)

[5] Ibid., (p. 131)

[6] Ibid., (p. 132)

[7] Ibid., (p. 132)

[8] Ibid., (p. 132)

[9] Ibid., (p. 133)

[10] Keith L. Nelson, “The ‘Warfare State’: History of a Concept.” The Pacific Historical Review, 40, no. 2 (May 1971): 127-143. https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.uleth.ca/stable/3638293 (p. 140)

[11] Ibid., (p. 137)

[12] Ibid., (p. 137)

[13] Ellul, Jacques. “Categories of Propaganda.” In Propaganda: The Formation of Men’s Attitudes, trans. Konrad Kellen and Jean Lerner, 61 – 87. New York, Knopf, 1965

[14] Ibid

[15] David Sirota, “25 Years Later, How ‘Top Gun’ Made America Love War,” Washington Post, August 26, 2011, sec. Opinions, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/25-years-later-remembering-how-top-gun-changed-americas-feelings-about-war/2011/08/15/gIQAU6qJgJ_story.html?noredirect=on.

[16] Jason Leopold and Ky Henderson, “Tequila, Painted Pearls, and Prada — How the CIA Helped Produce ‘Zero Dark Thirty,’” http://www.vice.com, September 9, 2015, https://www.vice.com/en/article/xw3ypa/tequila-painted-pearls-and-prada-how-the-cia-helped-produce-zero-dark-thirty.

[17] Stephen Underhill, “Complete List of Commercial Films Produced with Assistance from the Pentagon (FOIA Request),” 2013, https://www.academia.edu/4460251.

[18] Matthew Cox, “Here’s the Army’s next Big Advertising Campaign,” Military.com, November 11, 2019, https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/11/10/heres-armys-next-big-advertising-campaign.html.

[19] Jowett, Garth and Victoria O’Donnell. “What is Propaganda and How Does it Differ From Persuasion.” In  Propaganda and Persuasion, 2nd Edition, 1-35. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1992.