  |
|
|
|
Understanding the Military-Industrial ComplexEisenhower's Warnings Speak to Contemporary ProblemsA "Military-Industrial Complex" (MIC) is a term frequently referenced when confronting the politics surrounding war, however few take the time to explain its meaning.
In Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell speech to the nation the retiring president warned of the dangers of allowing a Military-Industrial Complex to take control of the United States. In the years since this warning the U.S. Army has suffered allegations of favoritism in awarding contracts to long-time industrial partners. To many, these corruption scandals coupled with nearly a decade of various conflicts put forth the argument that the nation's politics may now vindicate Eisenhower's warnings. Defining the MICThe Military-Industrial Complex is a term that denotes a symbiotic relationship between a nation's military, economy, and politics. The idea being that if the military becomes the biggest client for manufacturers then the nation will begin to invest more of its economy into military contracts. Politically, this leads to national budgets being heavily weighed in the military's favor in order to support the economic stability that this relationship seems to create. Criticism of the Military-Industrial ComplexMost of the poignant criticisms of a Military-Industrial Complex point to the logical assumption that economic reliance in military development supports military action. Thus, if given a choice between diplomacy and military intervention, the nation dictated by a Military-Industrial Complex would lean away from diplomacy in a political and economic play by the nation's leaders. Extrapolating on this assumption, it would also make sense that a nation whose economic stability relies primarily on its military would be more inclined to find enemies to engage in order to spur more growth and development. Advocacy of the Military-Industrial ComplexFor many, however, the benefits of this relationship outweigh the costs. Looking at the United State's technological superiority in conflicts some would argue that reliance on the military has prompted many breakthroughs in weaponry that can eventually be modified for the civilian sector. Many of these military advances have been in computing and avionics, both incredibly relevant to civilian industries. Others also point to this relationship as a natural outcome of a free-market society. The military's need for better weaponry is naturally solved by the manufacturing industries. In essence, the Military-Industrial Complex is a three-fold reliance between a nation's military, economy, and politics that many see as portraying violent action as a mutually beneficial business venture instead of a potentially traumatizing decision. Many also see it as the natural product of a civilized nation seeking to improve upon its own security. In the wake of recent conflicts and corruption allegations, it is up to the United States citizen's to decide whether Eisenhower's words ring true.
The copyright of the article Understanding the Military-Industrial Complex in US Armed Conflicts is owned by John Leonard Lovik. Permission to republish Understanding the Military-Industrial Complex in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
|
|
|
|
