Tag Archives: military-industrial complex

The Military-Industrial Complex and American Fascism, by William J. Astore

The MIC is the embodiment of fascism. From William J. Astore at antiwar.com:

Since Ike’s warning more than 60 years ago, the MIC has only grown stronger and more anti-democratic

President Dwight D. Eisenhower (Ike) had it right. The military-industrial complex (MIC) is fundamentally antidemocratic The national security state has become the fourth branch of government and arguably the most powerful one. It gets the most money, more than half of the federal discretionary budget, even as the military remains America’s most trusted institution, despite a woeful record in wars since 1945.

A colleague, Christian Sorensen, says that when we look closely at the MIC we see something akin to American fascism. As he put it to me: “Our fascism certainly doesn’t look like past European movements, but it is far more durable, has killed millions and millions (SE Asia, Indonesia, Central America, Middle East), and has manifold expressions: wars abroad, wars at home, surveillance state, digital border, militarized law enforcement, economic warfare in the form of sanctions, militarization of space.”

It’s hard not to agree with him, not in the sense of Hitler’s Germany or Mussolini’s Italy but in the sense of concentrated government/corporate power that draws sustenance from nationalism at home and imperialism abroad. It’s true that America doesn’t have goose-stepping soldiers in the street. There are no big military parades (though Donald Trump once wanted one). It still seems like we have contending political parties. But when we look deeper, a militant nationalism and aggressive imperialism powered by corporations and enforced by government, including notably the Supreme Court, is the salient feature of this American moment.

Continue reading

The Best Speech I Never Gave. by Scott Ritter

The military-industrial complex has to be dismantled. From Scott Ritter at scottritterextra.com:

Scott Ritter pulls out of the Feb. 19 anti-war rally

The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.

[Note: I was going to speak at the Rage against the War Machine rally, scheduled for February 19 at the Lincoln Memorial, in Washington, D.C. For personal reasons, I will no longer be speaking.

In short, I have decided to take one for the team.

I wish all participants and attendees at this rally to have a very successful event, and hope that it can serve as the start of something even bigger down the road.

This is the speech I was planning to deliver at the rally. I think it would have done the event proud.]

Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to address you today.

I speak to you from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, a place of history filled with gravitas worthy of the task we have set for ourselves at this time in our collective history: to stand up—no, to rage—against a war machine that has perverted the very definition of what it means to be an American.

We stand here today at the very nexus of this war machine. To our right, just over the Potomac River, lies the Pentagon, a structure built at a time when America called upon its collective might to defeat the scourge of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, but which has since then morphed into the very symbol of evil itself, a breeding ground for weapons and plans that are used by the other partners, in what has become known as the military-industrial complex, to spread malfeasance around a world we once protected, but now enslave through a process of perpetual conflict used to sustain the American war machine.

And who are these other partners? Before us, past the monument to our founding father, George Washington, stands the Capitol of the United States, where the people’s representatives fund, in great secrecy, the nefarious schemes cooked up in the bowels of the Pentagon.

And to our left stands the White House, the seat of Executive authority, where individuals we invest with singular authority betray the trust of those who put them there by concei

Continue reading→

YouTube Flags Tulsi Gabbard’s Criticism of “War Machine” as “Offensive” Content, by Paul Joseph Watson

Tulsi Gabbard refuses to spout the propaganda and repeatedly engages in unapproved truth telling. That can only mean one thing: she gets flagged or tossed off Big Tech platforms. From Paul Joseph Watson at summit.news:

Military industrial complex get their feelings hurt.

YouTube flagged a Fox News interview in which former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard said war in Ukraine was good for the military industrial complex as “offensive” content.

Yes, really.

Apparently, upsetting war profiteering defense contractors is now grounds for censorship.

During the interview, host Laura Ingraham asked Gabbard why people were still demanding no fly zones, something that would likely cause World War III, when President Zelensky was “stepping back from his earlier NATO wishes and even demands?”

Gabbard responded by pointing out that Zelensky has said he’s willing to negotiate with Putin and “set this NATO membership thing aside.”

According to YouTube, such advocacy for peace is borderline content and needs to be hidden behind a warning screen. The video is also age-restricted.

Continue reading→

Will Special Interests Allow America’s ‘Longest War’ to Finally End? by Ron Paul

Special interests is a nice way of saying the defense and intelligence contractors and their bought and paid for bureaucrats, lobbyists, and politicians who have been on the Afghanistan gravy train for the last twenty years. From Ron Paul at ronpaulinstitutute.org:

Even if “won,” endless wars like our 20 year assault on Afghanistan would not benefit our actual national interest in the slightest. So why do these wars continue endlessly? Because they are so profitable to powerful and well-connected special interests. In fact, the worst news possible for the Beltway military contractor/think tank complex would be that the United States actually won a war. That would signal the end of the welfare-for-the-rich gravy train.

In contrast to the end of declared wars, like World War II when the entire country rejoiced at the return home of soldiers where they belonged, an end to any of Washington’s global military deployments would result in wailing and gnashing of the teeth among the military-industrial complex which gets rich from other people’s misery and sacrifice.

Would a single American feel less safe if we brought home our thousands of troops currently bombing and shooting at Africans?

As Orwell famously said, “the war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous.” Nowhere is this more true than among those whose living depends on the US military machine constantly bombing people overseas.

How many Americans, if asked, could answer the question, “why have we been bombing Afghanistan for an entire generation?” The Taliban never attacked the United States and Osama bin Laden, who temporarily called Afghanistan his home, is long dead and gone. The longest war in US history has dragged on because…it has just dragged on.

So why did we stay? As neocons like Max Boot tell it, we are still bombing and killing Afghans so that Afghan girls can go to school. It’s a pretty flimsy and cynical explanation. My guess is that if asked, most Afghan girls would prefer to not have their country bombed.

Continue reading→

Who Are the Ultimate War Profiteers? U.S. Air Force Veteran Removes the Veil, by Christian Sorenson

We hear all the time about the military-industrial-complex, but what is it, and who’s in it? From Christian Sorenson at covertactionmagazine.com:

While war corporations, or so-called “defense contractors,” make billions in profits, Wall Street is the ultimate beneficiary of today’s nonstop wars. The prosaic nature of war profiteering—far from the work of a shadowy cabal—is precisely why the collusion is so destructive and should be outlawed.

The U.S. ruling class deploys the military for three main reasons: (1) to forcibly open up countries to foreign investment, (2) to ensure the free flow of natural resources from the global south into the hands of multinational corporations, and (3) because war is profitable. The third of these reasons, the profitability of war, is often lacking detail in analyses of U.S. imperialism: The financial industry, including investment banks and private equity firms, is an insatiable force seeking profit via military activity.

The war industry is composed of corporations that sell goods and services to the U.S. government and allied capitalist regimes around the world. Investment banks and asset management firms hold most shares of every major public war corporation.

The best-known financial firms holding the stock of war corporations include: Vanguard Group, BlackRock, State Street, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Wellington Management.

Consider Parsons, a corporation that sells goods and services pertaining to construction, command and control, espionage, and day-to-day military operations. Parsons’ initial public offering in May 2019, valued at roughly $3 billion, earned it an industry Corporate Growth Award. The top holders of Parsons stock are investment banks and asset management firms—including the familiar Vanguard Group, BlackRock, and State Street.

Continue reading→

ELECTION 2020: What President Biden Won’t Touch, by Danny Sjursen

Joe Biden’s no threat to the warfare state. From Danny Sjursen at consortiumnews.com:

Considering the think-tank imperialists in the bunch Biden is naming to direct U.S. foreign policy, Danny Sjursen expects little to change in the essence of the war-state.

Military aircraft streaming red, white and blue during the welcoming ceremony for President Donald Trump, May 2017, King Khalid International Airport, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. (White House, Andrea Hanks)

In this mystifying moment, the post-electoral sentiments of most Americans can be summed up either as “Ding dong! The witch is dead!” or “We got robbed!” Both are problematic, not because the two candidates were intellectually indistinguishable or ethically equivalent, but because each jingle is laden with a dubious assumption: that President Donald Trump’s demise would provide either decisive deliverance or prove an utter disaster.

While there were indeed areas where his ability to cause disastrous harm lent truth to such a belief — race relations, climate change, and the courts come to mind — in others, it was distinctly (to use a dangerous phrase) overkill. Nowhere was that more true than with America’s expeditionary version of militarism, its forever wars of this century, and the venal system that continues to feed it.

For nearly two years, We the People were coached to believe that the 2020 election would mean everything, that Nov. 3 would be democracy’s ultimate judgment day. What if, however, when it comes to issues of war, peace, and empire, “Decision 2020” proves barely meaningful?

After all, in the election campaign just past, Donald Trump’s sweeping war-peace rhetoric and Joe Biden’s hedging aside, neither nuclear-code aspirant bothered to broach the most uncomfortable questions about America’s uniquely intrusive global role. Neither dared dissent from normative notions about America’s posture and policy “over there,” nor challenge the essence of the war-state, a sacred cow if ever there was one.

Continue reading→

When George W. Bush Aides Back Joe Biden, You Know the Presidential Campaign is Getting Ugly, by Doug Bandow

The War Party has both Democrats and Republicans, and so it’s not surprising that some Republicans, who’ve never liked Trump but like war, are backing Joe Biden. From Doug Bandow at antiwar.com:

The 2020 election campaign is likely to get much uglier before November 3rd. Both parties face internal wars that will shape future U.S. foreign policy.

In Democratic primaries younger progressive candidates continue to challenge establishment paladins. And leading members of the bipartisan War Party continue to fall. The latest Bigfoot loss appears to be Eliot Engel, Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Out will go a reliable hawk and Israel ally, replaced by a younger member critical of endless war and lawmaking for foreign interests. Engel’s loss also could result in a committee leader more skeptical of reflexive intervention.

Unfortunately, no such ferment is happening within the more reliably hawkish GOP congressional caucus. Other than a few outliers such as Sen. Rand Paul, Republicans are not just avowed interventionists but genuine warmongers. For instance, in 2017 Sen. Lindsey Graham lightheartedly dismissed the possibility of nuclear war on the Korean peninsula as being “over there” rather than “over here.”

However, insufficient enthusiasm for war might cost President Donald Trump some traditional GOP support. Although John Bolton said he is not prepared to vote for Joe Biden – apparently economic and social issues matter too much to Bolton – some Republican hawks are turning to the presumptive Democratic nominee. Indeed, a new SuperPAC, “43 Alumni for Biden,” is set to launch, supposedly backed by “hundreds” of George W. Bush (the 43rd president) appointees. They emphasize foreign policy.

Continue reading→

Trump’s Record on Foreign Policy: Lost Wars, New Conflicts, and Broken Promises, by Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies

President Trump’s war and foreign policy record is nothing to be proud of. From Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies at antiwar.com:

On June 13, President Donald Trump told the graduating class at West Point, “We are ending the era of endless wars.” That is what Trump has promised since 2016, but the “endless” wars have not ended. Trump has dropped more bombs and missiles than George W. Bush or Barack Obama did in their first terms, and there are still roughly as many US bases and troops overseas as when he was elected.

Trump routinely talks up both sides of every issue, and the corporate media still judge him more by what he says (and tweets) than by his actual policies. So it isn’t surprising that he is still trying to confuse the public about his aggressive war policy. But Trump has been in office for nearly three and a half years, and he now has a record on war and peace that we can examine.

Such an examination makes one thing very clear: Trump has come closer to starting new wars with North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran than to ending any of the wars he inherited from Obama. His first-term record shows Trump to be just another warmonger in chief.

Continue reading

How the Military-Industrial Complex Is Using the Coronavirus, by William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman

The military-industrial complex’s biggest fear about the coronavirus is that it might awaken a sufficient number of people to how much money is wasted on the complex and motivate them to do something about it. From William D. Hartung and Ben Freeman at thenation.com:

Arms industry lobbyists are addressing this pandemic and preparing for the next by pushing weapons sales.

Continue reading→

Government Money Corrupted Science and Technology, by Doug Casey

When the government’s paying the bills it calls the tune and the recipients dance, especially those who receive the most: the big high tech firms and defense contractors. From Doug Casey at caseyresearch.com:


Editor’s note: In yesterday’s Dispatch, we spoke to Casey Research founder Doug Casey about his outlook on green energy, and how endless bureaucracy and government “funny money” are destroying the sector.

Today, we continue our Conversations With Casey, as Doug explains the threat of the scientific technological elite amid a growing tech bubble.

Read on to hear why this problem isn’t going away, and why he “wouldn’t touch tech stocks with a 10-foot pole”…


Daily Dispatch: Now that we’ve come full circle back to technology, we’d like your take on something that President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his farewell address in 1960. Most people remember his warning about the “military-industrial complex.”

But he gave another warning, too, about how the “public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.” What did he mean by that?

Doug Casey: Yes, that was a wonderful speech. He made two points that people have forgotten. Everyone knows and quotes his sage comments on the military-industrial complex. Those were spot on.

But nobody mentions the point he made about the threat of the “scientific technological elite.” Eisenhower points out, quite correctly, that it was no longer a question of a genius working solo in his laboratory to make discoveries.

Even in his day, which is to say over 60 years ago, there was a huge amount of government money flowing into science and technology. Now it’s almost all government money, directly or indirectly.

Continue reading