The All-Pervasive Military/Security
Complex
The All-Pervasive Military/Security
Complex
The article below by Professor Joan
Roelofs is reproduced with permission from CounterPunch.
The article is long but very
important and is worth a careful read. It shows that the military/security
complex has woven itself so tightly into the American social, economic, and
political fabric as to be untouchable. President Trump is an extremely brave or
foolhardy person to take on this most powerful and pervasive of all US
institutions by trying to normalize US relations with Russia, chosen by the
military/security complex as the “enemy” that justifies its enormous budget and
power.
In 1961 President Eisenhower in his
last public address to the American people warned us about the danger to
democracy and accountable government presented by the military/industrial
complex. You can imagine how much stronger the complex is 57 years later after
decades of Cold War with the Soviet Union.
The Russian government, Russian
media, and Russian people desperately need to comprehend how powerful the US
military/security complex is and how it is woven into the fabric of America. No
amount of diplomacy by Lavrov and masterful chess playing by Putin can possibly
shake the control over the United States exercised by the military/security
complex.
Professor Roelofs has done a good
deed for the American people and for the world in assembling such extensive
information documenting the penetration into every aspect of American life of
the military/security complex. It is a delusion that a mere President of the
United States can bring such a powerfull, all-pervasive institution to heel and
deprive it of its necessary enemy.
The Political Economy of the Weapons
Industry
Guess Who’s Sleeping With Our Insecurity Blanket?
By Joan Roelofs
For many people the
“military-industrial-complex (MIC)” brings to mind the top twenty weapons
manufacturers. President Dwight Eisenhower, who warned about it in 1961, wanted
to call it the military- industrial-congressional-complex, but decided it was
not prudent to do so. Today it might well be called the
military-industrial-congressional-almost-everything-complex. Most departments
and levels of government, businesses, and also many charities, social service,
environmental, and cultural organizations, are deeply embedded with the
military.
The weapons industry may be
spearheading the military budget and military operations; it is aided immensely
by the cheering or silence of citizens and their representatives. Here we will
provide some likely reasons for that assent. We will use the common typology of
three national sectors: government, business, and nonprofit, with varying
amounts of interaction among them. This does not preclude, though it masks
somewhat, the proposition that government is the executive of the ruling class.
Every kind of business figures in the
Department of Defense (DoD) budget. Lockheed is currently the largest
contractor in the weapons business. It connects with the worldwide MIC by
sourcing parts, for example, for the F-35 fighter plane, from many countries.
This helps a lot to market the weapon, despite its low opinion among military
experts as well as anti-military critics. Lockheed also does civilian work,
which enhances its aura while it spreads its values.
Other types of businesses have
enormous multi-year contracts—in the billions. This despite the constitutional
proviso that Congress not appropriate military funds for more than a two year
term. Notable are the construction companies, such as Fluor, KBR, Bechtel, and
Hensel Phelps. These build huge bases, often with high tech surveillance or
operational capacity, in the US and abroad, where they hire locals or commonly,
third country nationals to carry out the work. There are also billion-funded
contractors in communications technology, intelligence analysis, transportation,
logistics, food, and clothing. “Contracting out” is our modern military way;
this also spreads its influence far and wide.
Medium, small, and tiny businesses
dangle from the “Christmas tree” of the Pentagon, promoting popular cheering or
silence on the military budget. These include special set-asides for
minority-owned and small businesses. A Black-owned small business, KEPA-TCI
(construction), received contracts for $356 million. [Data comes from several
sources, available free on the internet: websites, tax forms, and annual
reports of organizations; usaspending.gov (USA) and governmentcontractswon.com
(GCW).] Major corporations of all types serving our services have been
excellently described in Nick Turse’s The Complex. Really small and tiny businesses
are drawn into the system: landscapers, dry cleaners, child care centers, and
Come- Bye Goose Control of Maryland.
Among the businesses with large DoD
contracts are book publishers: McGraw-Hill, Greenwood, Scholastic, Pearson,
Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, Elsevier, and others. Rarely have the biases in
this industry, in fiction, nonfiction, and textbook offerings, been examined.
Yet the influences on this small but significant population, the reading
public, and the larger schooled contingent, may help explain the silence of the
literate crowd and college graduates.
Much of what is left of organized
industrial labor is in weapons manufacture. Its PACs fund the few “progressive”
candidates in our political system, who tend to be silent about war and the threat
of nuclear annihilation. Unlike other factories, the armaments makers do not
suddenly move overseas, although they do use subcontractors worldwide.
Military spending may be only about
6% of the GDP, yet it has great impact because: 1. it is a growing sector; 2.
it is recession-proof; 3. it does not rely on consumer whims; 4. it is the only
thing prospering in many areas; and 5. the “multiplier” effect: subcontracting,
corporate purchasing, and employee spending perk up the regional economy. It is
ideally suited to Keynesian remedies, because of its ready destruction and
obsolescence: what isn’t consumed in warfare, rusted out, or donated to our
friends still needs to be replaced by the slightly more lethal thing. Many of
our science graduates work for the military directly or its contractee labs
concocting these.
The military’s unbeatable weapon is
jobs, and all members of Congress, and state and local officials, are aware of
this. It is where well-paying jobs are found for mechanics, scientists, and engineers;
even janitorial workers do well in these taxpayer-rich firms. Weaponry is also
important in our manufactured goods exports as our allies are required to have
equipment that meets our specifications. Governments, rebels, terrorists,
pirates, and gangsters all fancy our high tech and low tech lethal devices.
Our military economy also yields a
high return on investments. These benefit not only corporate executives and
other rich, but many middle and working class folk, as well as churches,
benevolent, and cultural organizations. The lucrative mutual funds offered by
Vanguard, Fidelity, and others are heavily invested in the weapons
manufacturers.
Individual investors may not know
what is in their fund’s portfolios; the institutions usually know. A current
project of World Beyond War (https://worldbeyondwar.org/divest) advocates
divestment of military stocks in the pension funds of state and local
government workers: police, firepersons, teachers, and other civil servants.
Researchers are making a state-by-state analysis of these funds. Among the
findings are the extensive military stock holdings of CALpers, the California
Public Employees Retirement System (the sixth largest pension fund on earth),
the California State Teachers Retirement System, the New York State Teachers
Retirement System, the New York City Employees Retirement System, and the New
York State Common Retirement Fund (state and local employees). Amazing! the New
York City teachers were once the proud parents of red diaper babies.
The governmental side of the MIC
complex goes far beyond the DoD. In the executive branch, Departments of State,
Homeland Security, Energy, Veterans Affairs, Interior; and CIA, AID, FBI, NASA,
and other agencies; are permeated with military projects and goals. Even the
Department of Agriculture has a joint program with the DoD to “restore”
Afghanistan by creating a dairy cattle industry. No matter that the cattle and
their feed must be imported, cattle cannot graze in the terrain as the native
sheep and goats can, there is no adequate transportation or refrigeration, and
the Afghans don’t normally drink milk. The native animals provide yogurt,
butter, and wool, and graze on the rugged slopes, but that is all so
un-American.
Congress is a firm ally of the
military. Campaign contributions from contractor PACs are generous, and lobbying
is extensive. So also are the outlays of financial institutions, which are
heavily invested in the MIC. Congresspeople have significant shares of weapons
industry stocks. To clinch the deal, members of Congress (and also state and
local lawmakers) are well aware of the economic importance of military con-
tracts in their states and districts.
Military bases, inside the US as well
as worldwide, are an economic hub for communities. The DoD Base Structure
Report for Fy2015 lists more than 4,000 domestic properties. Some are bombing
ranges or re- cruiting stations; perhaps 400 are bases with a major impact on
their localities. The largest of these, Fort Bragg, NC, is a city unto itself,
and a cultural influence as well as economic asset to its region, as so well
described by Catherine Lutz in Homefront. California has about 40 bases
(https://militarybases.com/by- state/), and is home to major weapons makers as
well. Officers generally live off-base, so the real estate, restaurant, retail,
auto repair, hotel and other businesses are prospering. Local civilians find
employment on bases. Closed, unconvertible installations are sometimes tourist
attractions, such as the unlikeliest of all vacation spots, the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation.
DoD has direct contracts and grants
with state and local governments. These are for various projects and services,
including large amounts to fund the National Guard. The Army Engineers maintain
swimming holes and parks, and police forces get a deal on Bearcats. JROTC
programs nationwide provide funding for public schools, and even more for those
that are public school military academies; six are in Chicago.
National, state and local governments
are well covered by the “insecurity blanket;” the nonprofit sector is not
neglected. Nevertheless, it does harbor the very small group of anti-war
organizations, such as Iraq Veterans Against War, Veterans for Peace, World
Beyond War, Peace Action, Union of Concerned Scientists, Center for
International Policy, Catholic Worker, Answer Coalition, and others. Yet unlike
the Vietnam War period there is no vocal group of religious leaders protesting
war, and the few students who are politically active are more concerned with
other issues.
Nonprofit organizations and
institutions are involved several ways. Some are obviously partners of the MIC:
Boy and Girl Scouts, Red Cross, veterans’ charities, military think-tanks such
as RAND and Institute for Defense Analysis, establishment think-tanks like the
American Enterprise Institute, Atlantic Council, and the flagship of US world
projection, the Council on Foreign Relations. There are also many international
nongovernmental organizations that assist the US government in delivering
“humanitarian” assistance, sing the praises of the market economy, or attempt
to repair the “collateral” damage inflicted on lands and people, for example,
Mercy Corps, Open Society Institutes, and CARE.
Educational institutions in all sectors are embedded with the military. The
military schools include the service academies, National Defense University,
Army War College, Naval War College, Air Force Institute of Technology, Air
University, Defense Acquisition University, Defense Language Institute, Naval
Postgraduate School, Defense Information School, the medical school, Uniformed
Services University of the Health Sciences, and the notorious School of the
Americas in Fort Benning, GA, now renamed the Western Hemisphere Institute for
Security Cooperation. “In addition, Senior Military Colleges offer a
combination of higher education with military instruction. SMCs include Texas
A&M University, Norwich University, The Virginia Military Institute, The
Citadel, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech),
University of North Georgia and the Mary Baldwin Women’s Institute for
Leadership” (https://www.usa.gov/military-colleges).
A university doesn’t have to be
special to be part of the MIC. Most are awash with contracts, ROTC programs,
and/or military officers and contractors on their boards of trustees. A study
of the 100 most militarized universities includes prestigious institutions, as
well as diploma mills that produce employees for military intelligence agencies
and contractors (https://news.vice.com/article/these-are-the-100-most-militarized-universities-in-america).
Major liberal foundations have long
engaged in covert and overt operations to support imperial projection,
described by David Horowitz as the “Sinews of Empire” in his important 1969
Ramparts article. They have been close associates of the Central Intelligence
Agency, and were active in its instigation. The foundation created and
supported Council on Foreign Relations has long been a link among Wall Street,
large corporations, academia, the media, and our foreign and military
policymakers.
Less obvious are the military
connections of philanthropic, cultural, social service, environmental, and
professional organizations. They are linked through donations; joint programs;
sponsorship of events, exhibits, and concerts; awards (both ways); investments;
boards of directors; top executives; and contracts. The data here covers
approximately the last twenty years, and rounds out the reasons for the
astounding support (according to the polls) that US citizens have conferred on
our military, its budget, and its operations.
Military contractor philanthropy was
the subject of my previous CP reports, in 2006 and 2016. Every type of
nonprofit (as well as public schools and universities) received support from
the major weapons manufacturers; some findings were outstanding. Minority
organizations were extremely well endowed. For many years there was crucial
support for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP) from Lockheed; Boeing also funded the Congressional Black Caucus. The former
president and CEO of the NAACP, Bruce Gordon, is now on the Board of Trustees
of Northrop Grumman.
General Electric is the most generous
military contractor philanthropist, with direct grants to organizations and
educational institutions, partnerships with both, and matching contributions
made by its thousands of employees. The latter reaches many of the
nongovernmental and educational entities throughout the country.
Major donors to the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace (listed in its 2016 Annual Report) include
the Defense Intelligence Agency, Cisco Systems, Open Society Foundations, US
Department of Defense, General Electric, North Atlantic Treaty Organization,
and Lockheed Martin. This is an echo of the CEIP’s military connections reported
in Horace Coon’s book of the 1930s, Money to Burn.
The DoD itself donates surplus
property to organizations; among those eligible are Big Brothers/Big Sisters,
Boys and Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League Baseball, and
United Service Organizations. The Denton Program allows non-governmental
organizations to use extra space on U.S. military cargo aircraft to transport
humanitarian assistance materials.
There is a multitude of joint
programs and sponsorships. Here is a small sample:
The American Association of University Women’s National Tech Savvy Program
encourages girls to enter STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)
careers, with sponsorship from Lockheed, BAE Systems, and Boeing. Junior
Achievement, sponsored by Bechtel, United Technologies, and others, aims to
train children in market-based economics and entrepreneurship. Wolf Trap
Foundation for the Performing Arts is partnered with Northrop Grumman for an
“early childhood STEM ‘Learning through the Arts’ initiative for pre-K and
kindergarten students.” The Bechtel Foundation has two programs for a
“sustainable California”— an education program to help “young people develop
the knowledge, skills, and character to explore and understand the world,” and
an environmental program to promote the “management, stewardship and
conservation for the state’s natural resources.”
The NAACP ACT-SO is a “yearlong
enrichment program designed to recruit, stimulate, and encourage high academic
and cultural achievement among African-American high school students,” with
sponsorship from Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman et al. The national
winners receive financial awards from major corporations, college scholarships,
internships, and apprenticeships—in the military industries.
In recent years the weapons makers have become enthusiastic environmentalists.
Lockheed was a sponsor of the US Chamber of Commerce Foundation Sustainability
Forum in 2013. Northrop Grumman supports Keep America Beautiful, National
Public Lands Day, and a partnership with Conservation International and the
Arbor Day Foundation (for forest restoration). United Technologies is the
founding sponsor of the U.S. Green Building Council Center for Green Schools,
and co-creator of the Sustainable Cities Design Academy. Tree Musketeers is a
national youth environmental organization partnered by Northrop Grumman and
Boeing.
Awards go both ways: industries give
awards to nonprofits, and nonprofits awards to military industries and people.
United Technologies, for its efforts in response to climate change, was on
Climate A list of the Climate Disclosure Project. The Corporate Responsibility
Association gave Lockheed position 8 in 2016 in its 100 Best Corporate Citizens
List. Points of Light included General Electric and Raytheon in its 2014 list
of the 50 Most Community-Minded Companies in America. Harold Koh, the lawyer
who as Obama’s advisor defended drone strikes and intervention in Libya, was
recently given distinguished visiting professor status by Phi Beta Kappa. In
2017, the Hispanic Association on Corporate Responsibility recognized 34 Young
Hispanic Corporate Achievers; 3 were executives in the weapons industry.
Elizabeth Amato, an executive at United Technologies, received the YWCA Women
Achievers Award.
Despite laborious searching through
tax form 990s, it is difficult to discover the specifics of organizations’
investments. Many have substantial ones; in 2006, the American Friends Service
Committee had $3.5 million in revenue from investments. Human Rights Watch
reported $3.5 million investment income on its 2015 tax form 990, and more than
$107 million in endowment funds.
One of the few surveys of nonprofit
policies (by Commonfund in 2012) found that only 17% of foundations used
environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria in their investments. ESG
seems to have replaced “socially responsible investing (SRI)” in investment
terminology, and it has a somewhat different slant. The most common restriction
is the avoidance of companies doing business in regions with conflict risk; the
next relates to climate change and carbon emissions; employee diversity is also
an important consideration. Commonfund’s study of charities, social service and
cultural organizations reported that 70% of their sample did not consider ESG
in their investment policies. Although 61% of religious organizations did
employ ESG criteria, only 16% of social service organizations and 3% of
cultural organizations did.
Weapon industries are hardly ever
mentioned in these reports. Religious organizations sometimes still used the
SRI investment screens, but the most common were alcohol, gambling,
pornography, and tobacco. The Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a
resource for churches, lists almost 30 issues for investment consideration,
including executive compensation, climate change, and opioid crisis, but none
concerning weapons or war. The United Church (UCC) advisory, a pioneer in SRI
investment policies, does include a screen: only companies should be chosen
which have less than 10% revenue from alcohol or gambling, 1% from tobacco, 10%
from conventional weapons and 5% from nuclear weapons.
The Art Institute of Chicago states
on their website that “[W]ith the fiduciary responsibility to maximize returns
on investment consistent with appropriate levels of risk, the Art Institute
maintains a strong presumption against divesting for social, moral, or
political reasons.” Listed as an associate is Honeywell International, and a
major benefactor is the Crown Family (General Dynamics), which recently donated
a $2 million endowment for a Professorship in Painting and Drawing.
Nonprofit institutions (as well as
individuals and pension funds of all sectors) have heavy investments in the
funds of financial companies such as State Street, Vanguard, BlackRock, Fidelity,
CREF, and others, which have portfolios rich in military industries
(https://worldbeyondwar.org/wp- content/uploads/2016/11/indirect.pdf). These
include information technology firms, which, although often regarded as
“socially responsible,” are among the major DoD contractors.
In recent years foundations and other
large nonprofits, such as universities, have favored investments in hedge
funds, real estate, derivatives, and private equity. The Carnegie Endowment,
more “transparent” than most, lists such funds on its 2015 tax form 990
(Schedule D Part VII). It is unlikely that Lockheed, Boeing, et al, are among
the distressed debt bonanzas, so these institutions may be low on weapons
stock. Nevertheless, most of them have firm connections to the MIC through
donations, leadership, and/or contracts.
Close association with the military
among nonprofit board members and executives works to keep the lid on anti-war
activities and expression. The Aspen Institute is a think-tank that has
resident experts, and also a policy of convening with activists, such as
anti-poverty community leaders. Its Board of Trustees is chaired by James
Crown, who is also a director of General Dynamics. Among other board members
are Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Javier Solana (former
Secretary-General of NATO), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman. Harman
“received the Defense Department Medal for Distinguished Service in 1998, the
CIA Seal Medal in 2007, and the CIA Director’s Award and the National
Intelligence Distinguished Public Service Medal in 2011. She is currently a
member of the Director of National Intelligence’s Senior Advisory Group, the
Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.” Lifetime Aspen
Trustees include Lester Crown and Henry Kissinger.
In recent years, the Carnegie
Corporation board of trustees included Condoleezza Rice and General Lloyd
Austin III (Ret.), Commander of CENTCOM, a leader in the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
and also a board member of United Technologies. A former president of Physicians
for Peace (not the similarly named well-known group) is Rear Admiral Harold
Bernsen, formerly Commander of the US Middle East Force and not a physician.
TIAA, the college teachers’
retirement fund, had a CEO from 1993-2002, John H. Biggs, who was at the same
time a director of Boeing. TIAA’s current board of directors includes an
associate of a major military research firm, MITRE Corporations, and several
members of the Council on Foreign Relations. Its senior executive Vice
President, Rahul Merchant, is currently also a director at two information
technology firms that have large military contracts: Juniper Networks and
AASKI.
The American Association of Retired
Persons’ chief lobbyist from 2002-2007, Chris Hansen, had previously served in
that capacity at Boeing. The current VP of communications at Northrop Grumman,
Lisa Davis, held that position at AARP from 1996-2005.
Board members and CEOs of the major
weapons corporations serve on the boards of many nonprofits. Just to indicate
the scope, these include the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Newman’s
Own Foundation, New York Public Library, Carnegie Hall Society, Conservation
International, Wolf Trap Foundation, WGBH, Boy Scouts, Newport Festival
Foundation, Toys for Tots, STEM organizations, Catalyst, the National Science
Center, the US Institute of Peace, and many foundations and universities.
The DoD promotes the employment of
retired military officers as board members or CEOs of nonprofits, and several
organizations and degree programs further this transition. U.S. Air Force
Brigadier General Eden Murrie (Ret.) is now Director of Government
Transformation and Agency Partnerships at the nonprofit Partnership for Public
Service. She maintains that “[F]ormer military leaders have direct leadership
experience and bring talent and integrity that could be applied in a nonprofit
organization. . .” (seniormilitaryintransition.com/tag/eden-murrie/). Given the
early retirement age, former military personnel (and reservists) are a natural
fit for positions of influence in federal, state, and local governments, school
boards, nonprofits, and volunteer work; many are in those places.
Perhaps the coziest relationships under the insecurity blanket are the
multitudes of contracts and grants the Department of Defense tenders to the
nonprofit world. DoD fiscal reporting is notoriously inaccurate, and there were
conflicting accounts between and within the online databases. Nevertheless,
even a fuzzy picture gives a good idea of the depth and scope of the coverage.
From the TNC 2016 Annual Report: “The
Nature Conservancy is an organization that takes care of people and land, and
they look for opportunities to partner. They’re nonpolitical. We need
nongovernment organizations like TNC to help mobilize our citizens. They are on
the ground. They understand the people, the politics, the partnerships. We need
groups like TNC to subsidize what government organizations can’t do” (Mamie
Parker, Former Assistant Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arkansas
Trustee, The Nature Conservancy).
Among the subsidies going the other
way are 44 DoD contracts with TNC totaling several million for the years
2008-2018 (USA). These are for such services as Prairie Habitat Reforestation,
$100,000, and Runway and Biosecurity upkeep at Palmyra Atoll, HI, $82,000
(USA). For the years 2000-2016, GCW lists a total of $5,500,000 in TNC’s DoD
contracts.
Grants to TNC for specific projects,
not clearly different from contracts, were much larger. Each is listed
separately (USA); a rough count of the total was more than $150 million. One
$55 million grant was for “Army compatible use buffer (acubs) in vicinity of
Fort Benning military installation.” Similar grants, the largest, $14 million,
were for this service at other bases. Another was for the implementation of
Fort Benning army installation’s ecological monitoring plan. Included in the
description of these grants was the notice: “Assist State and local governments
to mitigate or prevent incompatible civilian land use/activity that is likely
to impair the continued operational utility of a Department of Defense (DoD)
military installation. Grantees and participating governments are expected to
adopt and implement the study recommendations.”
TNC’s Form 990 for 2017 states its
investment income as $21 million. It reported government grants of $108.5
million, and government contracts of $9 million. These may include funds from
state and local as well as all departments of the federal government. The
Department of the Interior, which manages the vast lands used for bombing
ranges and live ammunition war games, is another TNC grantor.
Other environmental organizations
sustained by DoD contracts are the National Audubon Society ($945,000 for 6
years, GCW), and Point Reyes Bird Observatory ($145,000, 6 years, GCW). USA
reports contracts with Stichting Deltares, a Dutch coastal research institute,
for $550,000 in 2016, grants to the San Diego Zoo of $367,000, and to the
Institute for Wildlife Studies, $1.3 million for shrike monitoring.
Goodwill Industries (training and
employing the disabled, ex-offenders, veterans, and homeless people) is an
enormous military contractor. Each entity is a separate corporation, based on
state or region, and the total receipt is in the billions. For example, for
2000-2016 (GCW), Goodwill of South Florida had $434 million and Southeastern
Wisconsin $906 million in contracts. Goods and services provided include food
and logistics support, records processing, army combat pants, custodial,
security, mowing, and recycling. Similar organizations working for the DoD
include the Jewish Vocational Service and Community Workshop, janitorial
services, $12 million over 5 years; Lighthouse for the Blind, $4.5 million,
water purification equipment; Ability One; National Institute for the Blind;
Pride Industries; and Melwood Horticultural Training Center.
The DoD does not shun the work of
Federal Prison Industries, which sells furniture and other products. A
government corporation (and thus not a nonprofit), it had half a billion in
sales to all federal departments in 2016. Prison labor, Goodwill Industries,
and other sheltered-workshop enterprises, along with for- profits employing
immigrant workers, teenagers, retirees, and migrant workers (who grow food for
the military and the rest of us), reveal the evolving nature of the US working
class, and some explanation for its lack of revolutionary fervor, or even mild dissent
from the capitalist system.
The well-paid, and truly diverse
employees (including executives) of major weapons makers are also not about to
construct wooden barricades. Boards of directors in these industries are
welcoming to minorities and women. The CEOs of Lockheed and General Dynamics
are women, as is the Chief Operating Officer of Northrop Grumman. These success
stories reinforce personal aspirations among the have-nots, rather than
questioning the system.
Contracts with universities,
hospitals, and medical facilities are too numerous to detail here; one that
illustrates how far the blanket stretches is with Oxford University, $800,000
for medical research. Professional associations with significant contracts
include the Institute of International Education, American Council on
Education, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, National
Academy of Sciences, Society of Women Engineers, American Indian Science and
Engineering Society, American Association of Nurse Anesthetists, Society of
Mexican-American Engineers, and U.S. Green Building Council. The Council of
State Governments (a nonprofit policy association of officials) received a
$193,000 contract for “preparedness” work. Let us hope we are well prepared.
The leaders, staff, members, donors,
and volunteers of nonprofit organizations are the kind of people who might have
been peace activists, yet so many are smothered into silence under the vast
insecurity blanket. In addition to all the direct and indirect beneficiaries of
the military establishment, many people with no connection still cheer it on.
They have been subject to relentless propaganda for the military and its wars
from the government, the print and digital press, TV, movies, sports shows,
parades, and computer games—the latter teach children that killing is fun.
The indoctrination goes down easily.
It has had a head start in the educational system that glorifies the violent
history of the nation. Our schools are full of in-house tutoring, STEM
programs, and fun robotics teams personally conducted by employees of the
weapons makers. Young children may not understand all the connections, but they
tend to remember the logos. The JROTC programs, imparting militaristic values,
enroll far more children than the ones who will become future officers. The
extremely well-funded recruitment efforts in schools include “fun” simulations
of warfare.
There is a worldwide supporting cast
for the complex that includes NATO, other alliances, defense ministries,
foreign military industries, and bases, but that is a story for another day.
The millions sheltered under our
thick and broad blanket, including the enlistees under the prickly part of it,
are not to blame. Some people may be thrilled by the idea of death and
destruction. However, most are just trying to earn a living, keep their
organization or rust belt afloat, or be accepted into polite company. They
would prefer constructive work or income from healthy sources. Yet many have
been indoctrinated to believe that militarism is normal and necessary. For
those who consider change to be essential if life on this planet has a chance
at survival, it is important to see all the ways that the military-
industrial-congressional-almost everything-complex is being sustained.
“Free market economy” is a myth. In
addition to the huge nonprofit (non-market) sector, government intervention is
substantial, not only in the gigantic military, but in agriculture, education,
health care, infrastructure, economic development (!), et al. For the same
trillions we could have a national economy that repairs the environment,
provides a fine standard of living and cultural opportunities for all, and
works for peace on earth.
Joan Roelofs is Professor Emerita of
Political Science, Keene State College, New Hampshire. She is the author of
Foundations and Public Policy: The Mask of Pluralism (SUNY Press, 2003) and
Greening Cities (Rowman and Littlefield, 1996). She is the translator of Victor
Considerant’s Principles of Socialism (Maisonneuve Press, 2006), and with Shawn
P. Wilbur, of Charles Fourier’s anti-war fantasy, The World War of Small
Pastries (Autonomedia, 2015). A community education short course on the
military industrial complex is on her website, and may be used for similar
purposes.
Contact: joan.roelofs@myfairpoint.net
