News peace April 29, 2013 0 Comments

US military-industrial complex devours peace dividend

All Voices
click here for original article

US military expenditures are about 40% of global defense expenditures. In 2012 US military expenditures were about $682 billion. This is more than the amount spent by the next 13 highest country spenders combined.

The war is now over in Iraq for the US, and by the end of 2014 the main body at least of US troops will be withdrawn from Afghanistan. The Iraq and Afghan wars were very costly. Even though there will still be expenditures by the US in the two countries, it should be much reduced, producing a possible peace dividend.

If the defence budget were cut substantially, the money saved could be used for pressing domestic problems and also to reduce the deficit. Yet there is very strong resistance towards any very substantial cuts to defense spending. This is because, private military contractors, the Pentagon, and Congress all benefit from keeping spending well above what may be needed. Military contractors earn profits from the spending, the Pentagon gets the weapons they want and further their power within the system, and finally, politicians provide jobs for their constituents and bring funds into their districts helping to ensure their re-election. The result of all this is that in the battle to ward off cuts, the military-industrial-complex will be able to fend off severe cuts and the amount of the peace dividend will shrink drastically.

As shown in the appended video Pentagon officials have come before Congress to warn of the dire results of the impact of the across the board impact of sequestration. Over 10 years, the cuts would reduce defense spending by $500 billion. The Pentagon officials are joined by a chorus of defense contractors, politicians and talking head commentators. Even with the sequestration cuts the defense budget would remain close to the Cold War average, and almost at the highest level since World War II.

Chuck Spinney, worked as an analyst in the US Secretary of Defense’s office for over a quarter of a century. He claims that the way that the military-industrial complex works makes it very difficult to reap much of a peace dividend from ending the war in Iraq and Afghanistan: “It’s what in Washington we call an iron triangle, you have an alliance between the private sector, the defence contractors, the executive branch, in this case the Pentagon, and the legislative branch.”Since every one of the three groups benefits from defense expenditures, the result is a budget “that is packed to the gills with weapons we don’t need, with weapons that are underestimated in their future costs”. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that the defense contractors estimate the costs of projects much too low and also give positive spin to early results in order to “turn on the money spigot”. The companies also engage in what Spinney calls “political engineering” by spreading contracts around so that many politicians support the project even after costs increase.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is a prime example of how the process works. The fighter has had constant delays and cost increases. It is being built by Lockheed Martin, the largest US defense contractor. The project has become the most expensive in US history much more expensive than the Manhattan Project that produced the nuclear bomb. Originally the program was to cost $226 billion for almost 2,900 planes. Seven years behind schedule, the price is now $400 billion for just 2,400 planes. However, even these figures do not count in the almost $1 trillion it is expect to cost for operations and maintenance over the lifetime of the aircraft. Pierre Sprey, one of Defense Secretary’s Robert McNamara’s prized aircraft engineers back in the sixties says: that the program should be cancelled or “there will be so little money left over for anything that’s needed, it’ll be unbelievable. They’ll be cutting people, pilots, training, everything just to pay for this thing.” While the F-35 was supposed to be operational by 2012, critics claim that it is unlikely to be ready before 2017 at the earliest. In spite of all this the project continues to have support. Lockheed Martin has spread jobs and contracts over 47 states and Puerto Rico. Added to this, the project also includes, Britain, Canada, Australia, and Turkey with other countries as well planning to buy the plane.

Even when the Pentagon suggested that it could save almost $2.8 billion by pausing production of the Abrams M1 tank, the other players in the Iron Triangle kept the funds flowing. Over the last two years Congress has given $355 billion to keep the tanks that are not needed rolling off the assembly line. The cost to General Dynamics, which operates the plant, were just $22 million for lobbying Congress, and a mere $2 million in campaign contributions. Defense spending lobbyists can point to the threat poised by China and the new Obama pivot towards the Asia-Pacific region as grounds for maintaining the level of defense spending.

Spinney argues:”We need a threat. Al-Qaeda has sort of run out of strength and we have to have a new threat to justify continued spending. We are going to pivot to Asia and increase the defence budget.”.The Al Qaeda threat will be met by means that leave a smaller footprint and although the threat is regarded as expanding, a new enemy such as China or perhaps Russia will offer opportunities for greater expenditures. For the 2014 federal budget, President Obama proposed $526.6 billion to be spent on defense. This is $50 billion more than was expected. Apparently, the White House and Pentagon are simply ignoring the sequester cuts requirement that would require the $50 billion cut, hoping that by 2014 the sequester cuts will be replaced. The outlook for any peace dividend looks bleak but the outlook for the military-industrial-complex is relatively rosy.