MM: And that’s still nothing to do with a the industry of war, but with the fellows who actually decide upon it as gatekeepers.

…

It’s not the “Military Industrial Complex,” it’s those people in government in how they apply it.

And now we come full circle to the original point.  This movie is scary because it makes a reasonably solid case that the MIC isn’t something distinct from government.  It’s in part the vast defense industry, but it also has vast political reach and influence in many areas of military policy and spending.  Many of the top executives at defense contractors are themselves former government officials, and many government officials are themselves former defense contractor executives.  It’s that incestuous relationship that’s the real cause for concern, since the “gatekeepers” stand to profit from the industry of war, just as the defense industry profits from pro-war decisions made in the White House, Congress, and at the DoD.  Here’s just one example [ref: :]http://www.wesjones.com/business.htm]:

[Darth] Cheney was secretary of defense when Brown & Root first began to supply logistical services to the Army. It was his idea. In 1992, the Pentagon paid Brown & Root $3.9 million to produce a classified feasibility study on private outsourcing as a way to reduce the military’s dependence on troops for basic logistics. The Pentagon subsequently added $5 million to the contract and then chose Brown & Root to implement its own plan – namely, a five-year logistics contract from the Army Corps of Engineers to work alongside G.I.‘s in places like Zaire, Haiti, Somalia, KOSOVO, the Balkans, and Saudi Arabia. After Cheney became head of Halliburton in 1995, Brown & Root took in $2.3 billion in government contracts, almost double the $1.2 billion it earned from the government in the five years before he arrived. In the late 1990s Halliburton rebuilt Saddam Hussein’s war-damaged oil fields for some $23.8 million – fields Cheney, as secretary of defense during the first Gulf war, had been instrumental in destroying.

The issue isn’t spending big money, or a strong defense, but the potential abuse of power that might come from the absolute necessity to spend big money to maintain a strong defense.

MM: The Pentagon has crazed, vicious debates even when using Rolls-Royce engines and such, because even though the British are our allies having potential hiccups in supply/outside influence upon design/other security concerns isn’t the way you run a well-oiled paranoid machine

Stockpiling may be one way to insure against supply hiccups, or at least buys you time to look elsewhere. I would hope they know who they can trust, so long as they know who has a vested interest in seeing the US succeed.

If you control the source of someone else’s military hardware, you’ve got enormous influence on that entity’s military and diplomacy.

Look to who has a vested interest in your success, for example the iraqi insurgents get weapons from iran, granted partly because they don’t have as much choice but also because they know iran wants the US to remain stuck in iraq, the longer that happens the more time they have and the harder it’d be for the US gov’ment to make a case for another war (look at how long this took… still unstable… initial 9/11 motive wearing thin)

I’m not sure I understand a word of that, sorry.

If % of yearly budget is less than % of the value of new infrastructure, then you get less infrastructure for your buck by funding the military than you do for the other sectors. Bear in mind what the video said about the slice of the pie the military gets.

And again, you’re pushing this onto the Middle East and Iraq

Easiest example for me – I’m too young to remember much before. Terrorist war is less formalised, it seems

Contractors don’t “want war.” For the vast majority of contractors, war is a pain in the ass

There would not be a lot of work for a defense contractor without war (or the fear of) – the military does not have everything it needs normally – even in the current conflict there’s shortages of flak jackets for example, and the usege of munitions and feul tends to increase in conflict. This is why they might want to bribe congress into starting wars in the first place.

but without that ability to project force then Milosevic and the Balkans would still be filling mass graves I suppose. Not to mention every other penny war criminal who might give a big finger to the international community without the presumptive presence of a powerful force of engagement out there that can swing against them at a moment’s notice for bad behavior and a harsh article in the AP.

I suppose it depends on whether long term more lives are saved by getting rid of the regime than are lost in conflict. That is a difficult question nowadays with determined insurgents killing soldiers and people who aren’t even involved (as a protest), also difficult because we’re fed with distorted information on casulaties and there’s no easy way to predict how long the regime would’ve lasted without intervention and how many it would’ve killed (large mass murder tends to be unexpected – Saddie boy’s scuds for the shiites)

People want to war, it’s a fact of human existence. Since so many people are intrinsically inclined toward the activity

Me too thirsts to kill (randomly on oppertunity), but my mind tries to subdue that side. I know not why. Men bring death, women bring life.

I don’t have a problem if my neighbor wants to kill me, but I have a huge problem if my government allows it

The reverse for me, because ‘justice’ is reactive, not preventative (though I wouldn’t want it to be locking up the innocent) – that neighbour will have oppertunities to kill me before the law will have to oppertunity to do something about it, sure the law’s a deterrant to the killer but his prison sentance won’t do me much good. Without the law I’d have to rely on getting people to like me enough not to kill me, but it may be difficult when random person A goes on a rampage that had nothing to do with me

I never said that we don’t need regs. I just would like a more national guard approach to defense instead of a let’s police the world one.

Whilst it might be true that arms are more difficult of the manufactured goods to import, there is a global arms trade, and if it was cheaper or convenient to buy overseas they would no doubt find a way. Munitions and supplies may be a little easier, for example – and it’s cost effective in conflict time to have shorter supply routes to your area of deployment (and perhaps not actually pay for the goods until they reach you safely).

No, they wouldn’t. As far as the US goes, as long we have money to pay for it here, it’s out of the question and an absolute no-no. The Pentagon has crazed, vicious debates even when using Rolls-Royce engines and such, because even though the British are our allies having potential hiccups in supply/outside influence upon design/other security concerns isn’t the way you run a well-oiled paranoid machine. That’s not to say that the US doesn’t buy other people’s stuff – you just can’t safely run a country on securing your borders with stuff that other people sell you.

Ask Israel, who would probably have about ten years before they were overrun because they couldn’t field their hardware anymore without outside aid selling them support, or Iran, which iirc is having troubles right now because we’re refusing to sell them the parts to maintain their US made air force.

If you control the source of someone else’s military hardware, you’ve got enormous influence on that entity’s military and diplomacy. I’m continually astounded at the degree to which you Brits put up with it with the level of mutual handjobbing seems to go on between the Commonwealth and the US.

Also compare the infrastructure per $ of the military to other services – consider how much building you get relative to the US defense budget, which (the video stated) is larger than all others – the % value of new infrastructure accounted for should at minimum match the % the military takes of the budget, otherwise it’s less efficient

I’m not sure I understand a word of that, sorry.

Arms exports by the US is big business because we spend enough money that it’s the very best in the world most of the time, so it’s in high demand, and because arms exports controls are political in nature and selling last decade’s fighter planes to allies (and prospective allies) is cheaper and more effective in influencing the use of that hardware than shipping corn.

As I said before, if Commander Tikkitutu of Ihateyouallestan is using US planes and US hardware to maintain himself in power, then you can usually be damned sure that he’s not going to rock the boat much and get us to block his supply of arms that keeps hostile neighbor Nextdoorestan from invading and taking back the portion of the country he seized. Would it be better for the people of both countries to ship the corn? Sure, but in general that sort of aid tends to get sold to buy more guns or ends up in the bellies of wealthy backers/cronies of the ruling parties in the countries.

In the short term it means that even a country like the UK and Germany can be strong-armed into supporting apolitical, unpopular ventures more easily that the US wants them to. Now, again, do I agree with the way this is always applied? No. I can’t disagree with the notion of wanting to have as much influence as possible with every possible competing or associated nation though. I agree with the basic system. I disagree with the application of the system.

And consider, when we are at war, the effect on import/export prices (the US has a trade deficit), especially when you’ve instabalised (established?) an oil-supplier and their oil-wells are left burning (even if by natives who resent the presence)

And again, you’re pushing this onto the Middle East and Iraq…I’m really discussing this in much more general terms. Most “wars” aren’t wars much at all, don’t have any effect at all on oil, occasionally have correcting or opening affects on markets (as in “we parked a battleship off their coast and now they sell us their bananas again,” or “after winning the Cold War without firing a shot in anger, the once Communist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe now enjoy open markets”), and basically are affairs of posturing, potential conflict, and power projection without application of force.

Actual bullets flying and bombs actually dropping is the least of the real power of having the power to shoot a bullet, drop bombs, etc.

And granted, the military does other things and isn’t always at conflict and is a bargaining tool, but combining an uber-powerful military with leadership/contractors who want war is a war waiting to happen

Contractors don’t “want war.” For the vast majority of contractors, war is a pain in the ass. It cuts spending on important programs, because the operations budget is so high and you’ve got certain money if you focus on getting paid for developing a program rather than “Maybe it will happen” money for programs that ramp up for the rare happenstance of operations. What do contractors want? To get paid. Operations budgets are huge, bloated things that are like parasites on defense spending.

As for government leadership that wants war to happen though? Yes, that’s a problem; but it’s nothing much that the majority of defense contractors can do about without it except voting like the rest of us.

if the US was only strong enough to genuinely protect itself, it wouldn’t be able to project it’s power overseas, and those who wanna war would have lost a tool.

And so would those people who don’t want wars to happen. Maybe Europe or China could pick up the slack by increasing their own defense spending (and presumably be mean-ole’ bastards for presuming to), but without that ability to project force then Milosevic and the Balkans would still be filling mass graves I suppose. Not to mention every other penny war criminal who might give a big finger to the international community without the presumptive presence of a powerful force of engagement out there that can swing against them at a moment’s notice for bad behavior and a harsh article in the AP.

People want to war, it’s a fact of human existence. Since so many people are intrinsically inclined toward the activity, it only makes sense to be very good at it if only to be sure that people don’t for fear of reprisal. The danger of war is not in doing it well, it’s doing it because you want to…And that’s still nothing to do with a the industry of war, but with the fellows who actually decide upon it as gatekeepers. I don’t have a problem if my neighbor wants to kill me, but I have a huge problem if my government allows it.

It’s not the “Military Industrial Complex,” it’s those people in government in how they apply it.

MM- most government solicitations aren’t under any particular obligation to be bid on and performed by US companies

Whilst it might be true that arms are more difficult of the manufactured goods to import, there is a global arms trade, and if it was cheaper or convenient to buy overseas they would no doubt find a way. Munitions and supplies may be a little easier, for example – and it’s cost effective in conflict time to have shorter supply routes to your area of deployment (and perhaps not actually pay for the goods until they reach you safetly).
You could say that relitively more of that industry lies within US borders (hence the exports), but remember some sector spending has to be local by need, things like education, police, etc – we’re not just talking about manufactured goods being imported.

Also compare the infrastructure per $ of the military to other services – consider how much building you get relitive to the US defense budget, which (the video stated) is larger than all others – the % value of new infrastructure accounted for should at minimum match the % the military takes of the budget, otherwise it’s less efficient. And consider, when we are at war, the effect on import/export prices (the US has a trade deficit), especially when you’ve instabalised an oil-supplier and their oil-wells are left burning (even if by natives who resent the presence)

And granted, the military does other things and isn’t always at conflict and is a bargaining tool, but combining an uber-powerful military with leadership/contractors who want war is a war waiting to happen – if the US was only strong enough to genuinely protect itself, it wouldn’t be able to project it’s power overseas, and those who wanna war would have lost a tool.

There’s no reason to exclude competent contractors outside the country or contractors whose gross employment is outside the country for something that isn’t security sensitive.

I’m a large shareholder in Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin, I have friends financially backing Blackwater.

No incentive at all.

MM, I think you missed the point that was being driven at way back at the beginning – there is, and will continue to be, such a systemic collusion between members of government and military development firms.

Even when they’re deployed overseas, the vast majority of most military presence doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with killing people or destroying infrastructure in principle.

But in practice, they do it all the time. Care to debate whether Iraq would be better off if we hadn’t destroyed their infrastructure by sorties (alongside the British)? Electricity, water, transit, these things tend to be important to civilians, and important politically when you destroy them and invade with a smile and a helping hand. Of course, as we’re probably agreed, Iraq is a very particular example. The point still stands – warfare destroys. These are weapons, their quality is determined best in the field, used in live-combat situations. Yes, there are times when you’ll equip troops to do some damn good things.

However, it IS an issue for the organizations involved – the government issues the orders, and their motivations (collusive with commercial profit as they will undoubtably be) are important. Again, we develop weapons to deter and kill – and they deter because they kill effectively. So what we need to demonstrate is that, ah yes, there is a continuing needs to deter and kill ever more effectively.

Sorry, but I discount your statements primarily based on bias that denying government and corporate collusion in policy and execution is naive. I think it really is in the nature of the beast. We have to be careful of that.

Spending on any sector makes it’s way into the economy, providing jobs. The difference is the military destroys infrastructure and citizenry. It’s alright as long as it’s not your country on the receiving end of the wars that inevitably result from this kind of set-up.

With all due respect, if you think this you’re not fully informed about the system: While it’s true that there are earmarks for spending money on regionally sensitive areas and small businesses, most government solicitations aren’t under any particular obligation to be bid on and performed by US companies. There’s no reason to exclude competent contractors outside the country or contractors whose gross employment is outside the country for something that isn’t security sensitive. That’s exactly how you get something like companies from Dubai getting contracts to manage portions of US ports and government software development that happens in Europe or Asia. With a tank though, or some similar piece of equipment, it’s not advantageous to secure development outside the country, because it makes you vulnerable to trade restrictions or interference.

Furthermore, to simplify the role of the military to only “destroys infrastructure and citizenry,” is incredibly suggestive and uninformed too. When we’re not in a war the military isn’t destroying anything or killing anyone. They’re mostly doing things like providing flood relief and acting more or less like any other member of the community that’s employed in a community service role by the government. Even when they’re deployed overseas, the vast majority of most military presence doesn’t have anything whatsoever to do with killing people or destroying infrastructure in principle. Certainly when the military is deployed to strengthen an embassy, or to protect food envoys, or to hand out vital supplies after a disaster, they’re not “killing people and destroying infrastructure.” Now, perhaps there are organizations that can also provide those sorts of services, but there’s not many that can perform them in areas where the locals are likely to shoot or rob them with an expectation that they can curb prospective violence. And, also importantly, there aren’t any other agencies that are so visibly an agency of the United States government either – if a soldier is outside the country and providing you aid then you know it’s an act of the US government and no some generous person within the country. That’s diplomacy.

Again, I don’t think we’re accomplishing that sort of mission effectively in Iraq, but that’s a matter of policy, not a problem with the organizations involved.

I missed your comment earlier MisterMook – so I apologize for the tardiness of this reply. 

MM: An indictment of our military spending in the decades since WW2 rings hollow, because you might as well indict the world for being the way it is.

I completely agree.  Good thing I’m not indicting military spending per se.  While we spend obscene amounts of money on defense, that’s not the real issue as you point out.  Even so, your claim that “Military spending is a tiny fraction of total spending, no matter what its portion of discretionary spending is” hinges on the meaning of tiny. The fact is that, with a top line budget of about $2.9 Trillion, defense accounts for just under 20% at $577 Billion in the FY 2008 request [ref: ]http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/pdf/08msr.pdf].  That’s before you add the discretionary portion, which is another $500 Billion, and then the costs of the “Global war on terror”  which is another $145 Billion.  So, when all is said and done that’s $1.1 Trillion of a total of just under 4 trillion for fiscal 2008.  When you consider the whole budget (mandatory + discretionary) the US will spend 1 of every 4 dollars on defense in FY 2008.  That’s not good or bad – it’s just a wholelottamoney, and I’d argue 25% isn’t necessarily a tiny fraction.  Try dropping 25% of your body mass, or cutting off 25% of your right arm for an idea of how not tiny that is.

So – like I said – I agree that the “we spend a lot” argument alone isn’t sufficient to cause concern.  My point is that what we spend is a symptom of a greater problem of misplaced power and influence, a tell-tale sign of probable corruption and assholery in high places.  With trillions of dollars at stake, and a perpetual global war of ill-defined nature, I’m thinking it’s either time to hop on the gravy train, or to start demanding a greater level of accountability in how those heaps of money get tossed about.

Patness: Or was it rhetorical?

Ha! You want an answer to that?

We could invest ourselves if we could somehow summon that quantity of money, and use shareholder voting power to control the contractors, and if so you would also need to prevent unscrupulous small competitors taking advantage (through monopoly/oligopoly).
We could even have (and rely on) a nationalized defense contractor :LOL: – as if that’s ever gonna happen

Are we starting wars so somebody can cash in on stock options?

lol! Did… did you want me to answer that question? Or was it rhetorical?

I understand, though. Virtually any problem we can solve is systemic, and in that light, I’m glad we realize we have one. The problem is and will always be, how you change the system when we have a strong investment in it.