Have you read Understanding Power by Noam Chomsky? There's some great examples in there of why military spending is funded by the tax payers etc and how it's unlikely to change.
Well the two main points are tax payer consent/compliance/ignorance and the funding of high technology through the 'military system' (see the headers: 'The Military-Industrial Complex' and 'The Permanent War Economy
( ... )
In other words in his usual pattern Chomsky's analysis consists of fuzzy judgments that use no specific examples and reflect his inability to analyze anything with actual humans involved. There's no reference to how new a great deal of that military spending is, or to anything of the social/political context in which the US and Soviet military-industrial complexes appeared. Nor is there any reference to anything of how this spending was often disastrous and counterproductive to the end it theoretically espoused.
Looked at in that light, I might note, the US Military-Industrial Complex has the recurring pattern of promising the moon and delivering bug-dust. Its monopoly on political power has nothing to do with the actual, verifiable results it delivers any more than imperialism offered actual economic benefit to the older versions of empires. Treating it as a success and focusing on any kind of conspiratorial/voter apathy view, as opposed to recognizing the MI-Complex's lucrative power of donations and its complete monopoly of the new variants on the patronage system leads to the Chomskyist worldview where the US government is evil and everything that opposes it is good because Chomsky says it is.
It's a Congressional Military-Industrial Complex. The military doesn't have a monopoly on Congress; Congress has a monopoly on the military. The problem is people keep voting in retards who won't cut the budget.
Congress has always had the theoretical power never to vote for any war or to finance any war. That power to my knowledge has never been used even well before the M-I Complex age. The M-I Complex is the core of one of the most insidious and well-spread variants of patronage/pork, to the point that serious cuts would produce turnover of an unprecedented level. By contrast few people understand the importance of not having Social Security or Medicare until neither are around so they can be cut much easier by the ignorant.
I'm going with what Ike said. For some reason, he didn't mention Congress.
Besides, if Congress were added to the list and they actually tried to do something, I'm sure anthrax would be found in the mail again. It worked last time!
Or alternately if they tried to turn *this* bit of rhetoric into action the ensuing political backlashes would simply produce sweeping turnovers in districts electing such idealistic and naive reformers.
It can be credibly argued that he did intend to say it though: Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that a 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 that the third term was dropped from the final version to placate politicians.
The key question is though, is it true? Is Congress a part of the problem or not? I would say that it definitely is.
"War is the health of the State." - Randolph Bourne"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means
( ... )
See my reply tounderlankers. Those who bankroll the instigation of war are almost the biggest number of those who profit by the war, but they are not the ones who actually pay for prosecuting the war.
Here's the disconnect: you're conflating those who bankroll the instigation of the war with those who actually pay for for the prosecution of the war in their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. This stands to reason, if your assertion is true. Those who invested in starting the war can only come out of it profitably if they manage to transfer wealth from other people to themselves through the prosecution of the war.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yup, that's the linguistic rock-star for you.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Besides, if Congress were added to the list and they actually tried to do something, I'm sure anthrax would be found in the mail again. It worked last time!
Reply
Reply
Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that a 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 that the third term was dropped from the final version to placate politicians.
The key question is though, is it true? Is Congress a part of the problem or not? I would say that it definitely is.
"War is the health of the State."
- Randolph Bourne"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment