Military–industrial complex

Template:Short description Template:Use mdy dates Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists

The expression military–industrial complex (MIC) describes the relationship between a country's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref name="Bacevich2009">Template:Cite book</ref> A driving factor behind the relationship between the military and the defense-minded corporations is that both sides benefit—one side from obtaining weapons, and the other from being paid to supply them.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the armed forces of the United States, where the relationship is most prevalent due to close links among defense contractors, the Pentagon, and politicians.<ref name="npr">Template:Cite news</ref><ref>"SIPRI Year Book 2008; Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security" Oxford University Press 2008 Template:ISBN</ref> The expression gained popularity after a warning of the relationship's detrimental effects, in the farewell address of U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961.<ref>"The Military–Industrial Complex; The Farewell Address of Presidente Eisenhower" Basements publications 2006 Template:ISBN</ref><ref name="Held1999">Template:Cite book</ref>

Conceptually, it is closely related to the ideas of the iron triangle in the U.S. (the three-sided relationship between Congress, the executive branch bureaucracy, and interest groups) and the defense industrial base (the network of organizations, facilities, and resources that supplies governments with defense-related goods and services).<ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Nicastro, Luke. The U.S. Defense Industrial Base: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. October 12, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47751</ref>

EtymologyEdit

File:Dwight D. Eisenhower, official photo portrait, May 29, 1959.jpg

In his farewell address, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned U.S. citizens about the "military–industrial complex".

File:Eisenhower farewell address.ogg

Eisenhower's farewell address, January 17, 1961. The term military–industrial complex is used at 8:16. Length: 15:30

U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower originally coined the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...
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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together. [emphasis added]{{#if:|{{#if:|}}

— {{#if:|, in }}Template:Comma separated entries
}}

{{#invoke:Check for unknown parameters|check|unknown=Template:Main other|preview=Page using Template:Blockquote with unknown parameter "_VALUE_"|ignoreblank=y| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | author | by | char | character | cite | class | content | multiline | personquoted | publication | quote | quotesource | quotetext | sign | source | style | text | title | ts }}

The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a claim passed on only by oral history.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease elected officials.<ref name="Ledbetter">{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".<ref name="Ledbetter"/><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military–industrial–academic complex".<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.<ref>Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address", in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479</ref>

The MIC and the Cold WarEdit

Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" did exist before 1961, as the underlying phenomenon described by the term is generally agreed to have emerged during or shortly after World War II.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> For example, a similar phrase was used in a 1947 Foreign Affairs article in a sense close to that it would later acquire, and sociologist C. Wright Mills contended in his 1956 book The Power Elite that a democratically unaccountable class of military, business, and political leaders with convergent interests exercised the preponderance of power in the contemporary West.<ref name="Ledbetter"/><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>

Following its coinage in Eisenhower's address, the MIC became a staple of American political and sociological discourse. Many Vietnam War–era activists and polemicists, such as Seymour Melman and Noam Chomsky employed the concept in their criticism of U.S. foreign policy, while other academics and policymakers found it to be a useful analytical framework. Although the MIC was bound up in its origins with the bipolar international environment of the Cold War, some contended that the MIC might endure under different geopolitical conditions (for example, George F. Kennan wrote in 1987 that "were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented.").<ref>Template:Cite book</ref> The collapse of the USSR and the resultant decrease in global military spending (the so-called 'peace dividend') did in fact lead to decreases in defense industrial output and consolidation among major arms producers, although global expenditures rose again following the September 11 attacks and the ensuing "War on terror", as well as the more recent increase in geopolitical tensions associated with strategic competition between the United States, Russia, and China.<ref>Nicastro, Luke. The U.S. Defense Industrial Base: Background and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service. October 12, 2023. Pp. 4-5. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47751 </ref>

ErasEdit

First eraEdit

Template:American imperialism Some sources divide the history of the United States military–industrial complex into three eras.<ref name=":12">Template:Cite journal</ref> From 1797 to 1941, the U.S. government only relied on civilian industries while the country was actually at war. The government owned their own shipyards and weapons manufacturing facilities which they relied on through World War I. With World War II came a massive shift in the way that the U.S. government armed the military.

In World War II, the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the War Production Board to coordinate civilian industries and shift them into wartime production. Arms production in the U.S. went from around one percent of annual Gross domestic product (GDP) to 40 percent of GDP.<ref name=":12" /> U.S. companies, such as Boeing and General Motors, maintained and expanded their defense divisions.<ref name=":12" /> These companies have gone on to develop various technologies that have improved civilian life as well, such as night-vision goggles and GPS.<ref name=":12" />

Second eraEdit

The second era is identified as beginning with the coining of the term by U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower. This era continued through the Cold War period, up to the end of the Warsaw Pact and the collapse of the Soviet Union. A 1965 article written by Marc Pilisuk and Thomas Hayden says benefits of the military–industrial complex of the U.S. include the advancement of the civilian technology market as civilian companies benefit from innovations from the MIC and vice versa.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> In 1993, the Pentagon urged defense contractors to consolidate due to the fall of communism and a shrinking defense budget.<ref name=":12" />

Third eraEdit

In the third era, U.S. defense contractors either consolidated or shifted their focus to civilian innovation. From 1992 to 1997 there was a total of US$55 billion worth of mergers in the defense industry, with major defense companies purchasing smaller competitors.<ref name=":12" /> The U.S. domestic economy is now tied to the success of the MIC which has led to concerns of repression as Cold War-era attitudes are still prevalent among the American public.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> Shifts in values and the collapse of communism have ushered in a new era for the U.S. military–industrial complex. The Department of Defense works in coordination with traditional military–industrial complex aligned companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman. Many former defense contractors have shifted operations to the civilian market and sold off their defense departments.<ref name=":12" /> In recent years, traditional defense contracting firms have faced competition from Silicon Valley and other tech companies, like Anduril Industries and Palantir,<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> over Pentagon contracts. This represents a shift in defense strategy away from the procurement of more armaments and toward an increasing role of technologies like cloud computing and cybersecurity in military affairs.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> From 2019 to 2022, venture capital funding for defense technologies doubled.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

Military subsidy theoryEdit

File:Military Expenditures by Country 2019.svg

A pie chart showing global military expenditures by country for 2019, in US$ billions, according to SIPRI. Note that this is not shown as a percentage of GDP.

According to the military subsidy theory, the Cold War–era mass production of aircraft benefited the U.S. civilian aircraft industry. The theory asserts that the technologies developed during the Cold War along with the financial backing of the military led to the dominance of U.S. aviation companies. There is also strong evidence that the United States federal government intentionally paid a higher price for these innovations to serve as a subsidy for civilian aircraft advancement.<ref name=":0">Template:Cite journal</ref>

Current applicationsEdit

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), total world spending on military expenses in 2022 was $2,240 billion. 39% of this total, or $837 billion, was spent by the United States. China was the second largest spender, with $292 billion and 13% of the global share.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> The privatization of the production and invention of military technology also leads to a complicated relationship with significant research and development of many technologies. In 2011, the United States spent more (in absolute numbers) on its military than the next 13 countries combined.<ref>Template:Citation</ref>

The military budget of the United States for the 2009 fiscal year was $515.4 billion. Adding emergency discretionary spending and supplemental spending brings the sum to $651.2 billion.<ref name="gpoaccess.gov">Gpoaccess.gov Template:Webarchive</ref> This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department's budget. Overall, the U.S. federal government is spending about $1 trillion annually on military-related purposes.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

U.S. President Joe Biden signed a record $886 billion defense spending bill into law on December 22, 2023.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

In a 2012 story, Salon reported, "Despite a decline in global arms sales in 2010 due to recessionary pressures, the United States increased its market share, accounting for a whopping 53 percent of the trade that year. Last year saw the United States on pace to deliver more than $46 billion in foreign arms sales."<ref>"America, arms-dealer to the world", Salon, January 24, 2012.</ref> The U.S. military and arms industry also tend to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

Political geographyEdit

File:Defense US top20 2022.png

CitationClass=web }}</ref>

The datagraphic represents the 20 largest US defense contractors based on the amount of their defense revenue. Among these corporations, 53.5% of total revenues are derived from defense, and the median proportion is 63.4%; 6 firms derive over 75% of their revenue from defense. According to the Wikipedia entries for the companies, the headquarters of 11 of these corporations are located in the Washington metropolitan area, of which 5 are in Reston, Virginia.

Similar conceptsEdit

Template:See also

A thesis similar to the military–industrial complex was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government ties to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."<ref>Pursell, C. (1972). The military–industrial complex. Harper & Row Publishers, New York, New York.</ref>

An exhibit of the trend was made in Franz Leopold Neumann's book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state.

Within decades of its inception, the idea of the military–industrial complex gave rise to the ideas of other similar industrial complexes, including:<ref name="Best2011"/>Template:Rp

Virtually all institutions in sectors ranging from agriculture, medicine, entertainment, and media, to education, criminal justice, security, and transportation, began reconceiving and reconstructing in accordance with capitalist, industrial, and bureaucratic models with the aim of realizing profit, growth, and other imperatives. According to Steven Best, all these systems interrelate and reinforce one another.<ref name="Best2011">Template:Cite book</ref>

The concept of the military–industrial complex has been also expanded to include the entertainment and creative industries as well. For an example in practice, Matthew Brummer describes Japan's Manga Military and how the Ministry of Defense uses popular culture and the moe that it engenders to shape domestic and international perceptions.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref>

An alternative term to describe the interdependence between the military-industrial complex and the entertainment industry is coined by James Der Derian as "Military-Industrial-Media-Entertainment-Network".<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Ray McGovern extended this appellation to Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think-Tank complex, MICIMATT.<ref name="consortium news">Template:Cite news</ref>

Tech–industrial complexEdit

In his 2025 farewell address, outgoing U.S. President Joe Biden warned of a 'tech–industrial complex', stating that "Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation, enabling the abuse of power."<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref> Commentators noted that this statement was made following Elon Musk's upcoming role in the second Donald Trump administration and public overtures towards Trump by technology industry leaders including Meta's Mark Zuckerberg and Amazon's Jeff Bezos, including the dismantling of Facebook's fact-checking program.<ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>{{#invoke:citation/CS1|citation |CitationClass=web }}</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>

ReferencesEdit

CitationsEdit

Template:Reflist

SourcesEdit

Template:Refbegin

DeGroot, Gerard J. Blighty: British Society in the Era of the Great War, 144, London & New York: Longman, 1996, Template:ISBN
Eisenhower, Dwight D. Public Papers of the Presidents, 1035–1040. 1960.Template:ISBN?
Eisenhower, Dwight D. "Farewell Address." In The Annals of America. Vol. 18. 1961–1968: The Burdens of World Power, 1–5. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica, 1968.
Eisenhower, Dwight D. President Eisenhower's Farewell Address, Wikisource.
Hartung, William D. "Eisenhower's Warning: The Military–Industrial Complex Forty Years Later." World Policy Journal 18, no. 1 (Spring 2001).
Johnson, Chalmers The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic, New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004Template:ISBN?
Kurth, James. "Military–Industrial Complex." In The Oxford Companion to American Military History, ed. John Whiteclay Chambers II, 440–442. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Template:ISBN?
Mills, C. Wright."Power Elite", New York, 1956Template:ISBN?
Nelson, Lars-Erik. "Military–Industrial Man." In New York Review of Books 47, no. 20 (December 21, 2000): 6.
Nieburg, H. L. In the Name of Science, Quadrangle Books, 1970Template:ISBN?