- I hate to
say, “I told you so!”,
but the truth will always come out
More than
50 years after President Eisenhower's warning, Americans find themselves in
perpetual war.
|
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of
Public Interest Law at George Washington University and has testified before
Congress on the dangerous expansion of presidential powers.
|
In January 1961, US President Dwight D.
Eisenhower used his farewell address to warn the nation of what he viewed as
one of its greatest threats: the military-industrial complex composed of
military contractors and lobbyists perpetuating war.
Eisenhower
warned that "an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry" had emerged as a hidden force in US politics and
that Americans
"must not fail to comprehend its grave implications". The speech
may have been Eisenhower's most courageous and prophetic moment. Fifty
years and some later, Americans find themselves in what seems like
perpetual war. No sooner do we draw down on operations in Iraq than leaders
demand an intervention in Libya or Syria or Iran. While perpetual war
constitutes perpetual losses for families, and ever expanding budgets, it also
represents perpetual profits for a new and larger complex of business and
government interests.
The
new military-industrial complex is fueled by a conveniently ambiguous and
unseen enemy: the terrorist. Former President George W Bush and his aides
insisted on calling counter-terrorism efforts a "war". This concerted
effort by leaders like former Vice President Dick Cheney (himself the
former CEO of defense-contractor Halliburton) was not some empty rhetorical exercise.
Not only would a war maximize the inherent powers of the president, but it
would maximize the budgets for military and homeland agencies.
This
new coalition of companies, agencies, and lobbyists dwarfs the system known by
Eisenhower when he warned Americans to "guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence… by the military-industrial complex". Ironically, it
has had some of its best days under President Barack Obama who has radically
expanded drone attacks and claimed that he alone determines what a war is for the
purposes of consulting Congress.
Investment in homeland security companies is expected to
yield a 12 percent annual growth through 2013 - an astronomical return when
compared to other parts of the tanking economy.
Good
for economy?
While few politicians are willing to
admit it, we don't just endure wars, we seem to need war - at least for some
people. A study showed that roughly 75 percent of the fallen in these wars come
from working class families. They do not need war. They pay the cost of the
war. Eisenhower would likely be appalled by the size of the industrial and
governmental workforce committed to war or counter-terrorism activities.
Military and homeland budgets now support millions of people in an otherwise
declining economy. Hundreds of billions of dollars flow each year from the
public coffers to agencies and contractors who have an incentive to keep the
country on a war-footing - and footing the bill for war.
Across
the country, the war-based economy can be seen in an industry which includes
everything from Homeland Security educational degrees to counter-terrorism
consultants to private-run preferred traveler programs for airport security
gates. Recently, the "black budget" of secret intelligence programs
alone was estimated at $52.6bn for 2013. That is only the secret programs, not
the much larger intelligence and counterintelligence budgets. We now have 16
spy agencies that employ 107,035 employees. This is separate from the
over one million people employed by the military and national
security law enforcement agencies.
The
core of this expanding complex is an axis of influence of corporations,
lobbyists, and agencies that have created a massive, self-sustaining
terror-based industry.
The
contractors
In the last eight years, trillions of
dollars have flowed to military and homeland security companies. When the
administration starts a war like Libya, it is a windfall for companies who are
given generous contracts to produce everything from replacement missiles
to ready-to-eat meals.
In the
first 10 days of the Libyan war alone, the administration spent roughly
$550m. That figure includes about $340m for munitions - mostly cruise
missiles that must be replaced. Not only did Democratic members of Congress
offer post-hoc support for the Libyan attack, but they also proposed a
permanent authorization for presidents to attack targets deemed connected to
terrorism - a perpetual war on terror. The Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) offers an even steadier profit margin. According to Morgan Keegan, a
wealth management and capital firm, investment in homeland security
companies is expected to yield a 12 percent annual growth through 2013 - an
astronomical return when compared to other parts of the tanking economy.
The lobbyists
There
are thousands of lobbyists in Washington to guarantee the ever-expanding
budgets for war and homeland security. One such example is former DHS Secretary
Michael Chertoff who pushed the purchase of the heavily criticized (and little
tested) full-body scanners used in airports. When Chertoff was giving dozens of
interviews to convince the public that the machines were needed to hold back
the terror threat, many people were unaware that the manufacturer of the
machine is a client of the Chertoff Group, his highly profitable
security consulting agency. (Those hugely expensive machines were later
scrapped after Rapiscan, the manufacturer, received the windfall.)
Lobbyists
maintain pressure on politicians by framing every budget in "tough on
terror" versus "soft on terror" terms. They have the perfect
products to pitch - products that are designed to destroy
themselves and be replaced in an ever-lasting war on terror.
The
agencies
It is
not just revolving doors that tie federal agencies to these lobbyists and
companies. The war-based economy allows for military and homeland departments
to be virtually untouchable. Environmental and social programs are eliminated
or curtailed by billions as war-related budgets continue to expand to meet
"new threats".
A massive counter-terrorism system has been created employing
tens of thousands of personnel with billions of dollars to search for domestic
terrorists.
With the support of an army of
lobbyists and companies, cabinet members like former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano,
are invincible in Washington. When citizens complained of watching their
children groped by the TSA, Napolitano defiantly retorted that if people did
not want their children groped, they should yield and use the unpopular
full-body machines - the machines being sold by her predecessor,
Chertoff.
It is
not just the Defense and DHS departments that enjoy the war windfall. Take the
Department of Justice (DOJ). A massive counter-terrorism system has been created
employing tens of thousands of personnel with billions of dollars to search for
domestic terrorists. The problem has been a comparative shortage of actual
terrorists to justify the size of this internal security system.
Accordingly,
the DOJ has counted everything from simple immigration cases to credit card
fraud as terror cases in a body count approach not seen since the Vietnam War.
For example, the DOJ claimed to have busted a major terror-network as part of
"Operation Cedar Sweep", where Lebanese citizens were accused of
sending money to terrorists. They were later forced to drop all charges against
all 27 defendants as unsupportable. It turned out to be a bunch of simple head
shops. Nevertheless, the new internal security system continues to grind on
with expanding powers and budgets. A few years ago, the DOJ even changed the
definition of terrorism to allow for an ever-widening number of cases to be
considered "terror-related".
Symbiotic
relationship
Our
economic war-dependence is matched by political war-dependence. Many members represent
districts with contractors that supply homeland security needs and our on-going
wars.
Even
with polls showing that the majority of Americans are opposed to continuing the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the new military-industrial complex continues to
easily muster the necessary support from both Democrats and Republicans in
Congress. It is a testament to the influence of this alliance that hundreds of
billions are being spent in Afghanistan and Iraq while Congress is planning to
cut billions from core social programs, including a possible rollback on
Medicare due to lack of money. None of that matters. It doesn't even matter
that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has called the US the enemy and said he
wishes that he had joined the Taliban. Even the documented billions stolen by
government officials in Iraq and Afghanistan are treated as a mere cost of
doing business.
It is
what Eisenhower described as the "misplaced power" of the
military-industrial complex - power that makes public opposition and even
thousands of dead soldiers immaterial. War may be hell for some but it is
heaven for others in a war-dependent economy.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at
George Washington University and has testified in Congress on the massive
counter-terrorism budgets and bureaucracy in the United States.
*The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not
necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Source:
…..Way
too much money!
