• Editorial
• Public Surveillance
• Global Awareness
• Personal Maintenance
• ANMag Series
• Today in Brief
• بالعربي الفصيح

Do You think there will be a new war between Hizbollah and Israel? Yes 50.0% No 40.6% Not Sure 9.4% Total Votes: 96

2009 U.S. Federal Budget re-asserts Military-Industrial Complex�Again
President Bush Requests $588.3 Billion for Defense Spending in 2009 amid Record High $3.1 Trillion Budget
By Yousef Salama, Staff Writer

Toronto, Canada – Last Monday US President George W. Bush unveiled his 2009 U.S. Federal Budget. This budget, sent to the Congress for debate on Monday, includes more than half a trillion dollars ($588.3 billion) in basic defense spending, and another $70 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  This is roughly 3.4 percent of the U.S. total output, or Gross Domestic Product.  Although these numbers are quite daunting, they do not include the approximately $21 billion the United States spends on its nuclear arsenal, which is allocated under the budget for the Energy Department.  Even with such a large amount of defense spending, some contend that more money is needed.

Admiral Mullen believes the United States should spend at least four percent of its economic output on defense. "I really do believe this four per cent floor is important," he said. "And it's really important given the world we're living in, given the threats that we see out there, the risks that are, in fact, global, not just in the Middle East. And we as a nation need to be very careful about how we're going to invest in defense in order to handle these kinds of challenges, which will persist for the foreseeable future."1

Although an average of about $570 billion dollars a year, from 2006 to 2009, will be spent in the name of freedom, liberty and democracy, this simply isn’t the ideology of just one president.  Discussed by Charles Lewis, founder of the Center for Public Integrity; “There are so many theories about what happened in Iraq and why we really went in. But when you look at the history of the United States, almost every president there is something we don’t like, somewhere in the world and we’ve got to dispense military force. This is not about one president or one party. We fight as a nation because we perceive it is our interest to fight. And we then mention words like freedom and nice common values. Who can be against freedom, when in fact much more has been going on privately”.2

The idea of war for profit is nothing new in the realm of human history and can be traced back centuries earlier where arms races and the power of navy ships ruled an empire’s reach.  It is then no secret that the defense industry profits most when a nation commits to a lengthy war overseas. As any military will spare no expense for victory, it only makes sense to tap the resources of the defense industry to accomplish the mission. The bottom line: war is good business for those invested in it - manufacturing, production, servicing, investors, politicians, etc. 

The relationship between the parties that are charged to manage wars (the military, the presidential administration and congress) and companies that produce weapons and equipment for war (industry) is a dangerous one and is further explained in the military-industrial complex.

The phrase Military-Industrial Complex was first utilized in an American report at the turn of the 20th Century. “Military-Industrial Complex” was later immortalized by outgoing United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his January 17, 1961 farewell address to the nation. In his speech, he cites the Military-Industrial Complex as a warning to the American people – to not let this establishment begin to dictate America’s actions at home or abroad.

“A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”3

-United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his January 17, 1961 farewell address to the nation

Even though Eisenhower was a strong supporter of enhancing U.S. military might to ensure its continued dominance in the world, he also warned the nation about maintaining a check on the military industry to stave off any “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power”.  His warnings, however, appear not to have been heeded.    

According to the website militaryindustrialcomplex.com the value of ALL Contracts Since October 30, 2006 has reached 4 $282,852,794,329

Listed below is a summary of the year end statistics for 2007.
Total Contracts Recorded: 3,025

Total Contracts Dollar Value: $224,617,853,680

The Military-Industrial Complex Leader board since 10/30/2006

A Sampling of the Biggest Names in Defense with their currently running MilitaryIndustrialComplex.com Total:5 :

In 2004, the World Policy Institute, a non-partisan think tank issued a report titled “Private Military Contractors in Iraq and Beyond: A Question of Balance” studying the sheer scope of the private contracting business during conflicts of war. Below is a section of their findings:

“Not only are private contractors raking in massive amounts of taxpayer funds under the guise of fighting terrorism, but they are involved in activities that in his day would have been considered strictly government functions. The military-industrial complex is a much smaller share of our economy than it was four decades ago, but it is in the midst of a growth spurt, and it still needs to be watched, now more than ever.

Let’s start by talking quantity. It’s a great time to be a weapons contractor, a rebuilding contractor, intelligence or communications contractor, or a security contractor. Since the Bush administration took office in January 2001, the annual military budget has increased from roughly $310 billion per year to over $600 billion per year and counting. In addition to these regular appropriations, the United States has overthrown two governments (Iraq and Afghanistan), attempting to overthrown several more (Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea, Lebanon and Palestine) and occupied two nations to date at a cost of $177 billion and counting. And we have increased spending on homeland security from $16 billion in 2001 per year to $47 billion per year in this year’s budget request, with $39 billion of that amount occurring in agencies other than the Pentagon. While the administration would like you to believe that every penny of this is directly related to fighting what it calls the GWOT – the Global War on Terrorism – an objective assessment suggests otherwise.

The results for the contractors have been stunning. In 2003, Halliburton’s Pentagon contracts increased from $900 million to $3.9 billion, a jump of almost 700%. And that’s just the beginning. The company how has over $8 billion in contracts for Iraqi rebuilding and Pentagon logistics work in hand, and that figure could hit $18 billion if it exercises all of its options. Computer Sciences Corporation, which does missile defense work and also owns Dyncorps, a private military contractor whose work stretches from Colombia to Afghanistan to Iraq, saw its military contracts more than triple from 2002 to 2003, from $800 million to $2.5 billion. But even as these firms involved in Iraq and Afghanistan show the fastest growth, they can’t match the sheer volume of work logged by the "Big Three" military contractors. Lockheed Martin ($21.9 billion), Boeing ($17.3 billion) and Northrop Grumman ($16.6) billion split $50 billion in Pentagon contracts between them in 2003. That hefty sum represented almost one out of every four dollars the Pentagon doled out that year for everything from rifles to rockets.

Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest weapons contractor, offers an excellent case study in how contractors have been able to dip into the multiple pots of money available in the emerging national security state. Lockheed Martin the nation’s leading Pentagon contractor, with $21.9 billion in contracts in fiscal year 2003 for everything from missile defense to precision-guided munitions to advanced combat aircraft. But its national security related contracts don’t end there. The company also runs Sandia Laboratories, a nuclear weapons engineering and design laboratory, in a contract worth up to $2 billion per year. It is part of a partnership with Becthel that runs the Nevada Test Site, doing simulated nuclear weapons testing. It is partnered with Northrop Grumman on the Deepwater project, a multi-billion dollar plan to provide new ships, helicopters, and communications for the Coast Guard over the next decade. It is a major contractor for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. It has contracts with Transportation Security Agency (now part of the Department of Homeland Security) for airport security technology. And, until the recent scandal over the involvement of one or more Titan corporation employees in the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Lockheed Martin was in the process of trying to purchase that company to add to its corporate empire.

At a minimum, one might wonder whether it is wise to depend on one company for so many of our security needs. Given that we have chosen to do so, it is important to have regulatory and monitoring systems in place to ensure that they are spending taxpayer funds efficiently and effectively.

Many of the weapons systems and missions funded by this avalanche of spending – over $340 billion in new authorizations for security in fiscal years 2002, 2003 and 2004 alone – have little or nothing to do with fighting terrorism. I would argue strenuously that the war in Iraq has done more to undermine the war on terrorism than it has to advance it. Many of the weapons systems that we are funding with these hundreds of billions of dollars – from advanced fighter planes to nuclear powered attack submarines – have little application to fighting terrorism.”

As much as I am bothered by the entire US defense budget, it pains me more in some aspects  to write about what should be done with all of this money and about the military-industrial complex that continues its ever-growing presence in American foreign policy. Firstly, we need to acknowledge that the ideology of America as a freedom-fighter to the world did not begin its existence under the presidential term of George W. Bush.  Rather it began not too long after World War II -- during Eisenhower’s era-- thus making his remarks that much more relevant. Though it is true that the defense budget has multiplied during the Bush era, the sheer size of its proportions were still out of hand during Clinton’s stay in the White House; National defense discretionary spending totaled an estimated $275 billion in 20006.  Albeit a far cry from today’s $588.3 billion, $275 billion is nothing to sneeze at.
With such an exorbitant amount of spending taking place, let’s sit back and consider what all of this money could really do throughout the world. If we were to keep the defense budget at $275 billion (which is still by far the largest in the world) and divested the other $313 billion President Bush has requested in his 2009 budget, we could deliver freedom and liberty throughout the world in the economic sense, rather than through military might. All of us know the hardships of carrying debt and the burden this creates on our lives.  Our freedom becomes limited as we are tied down to our debt obligations and are unable to live the life we choose.  Just imagine the torment of those living in the 3rd world where in 2003, the debt of the 42 poorest nations reached $205 billion. With that $313 billion, President Bush is requesting over and above President Clinton’s $275 billion, we could eradicate debt in many 3rd world countries in less than one year.  As such, they would be flourishing in a type of freedom many in the U.S. have never felt.

If the U.S had decided not to generously help the 3rd world as much, consider the possibilities elsewhere; apparently President Bush hasn’t. In the upcoming budget he insists that out of all things that need to be reigned-in in terms of spending, healthcare was at the top of the list. As the Washington Post reports, the $3 trillion proposed federal budget, cuts Medicare and Medicaid funds by $14.2 billion7. The plan would shave an additional $560 billion from Medicare and Medicaid over the next decade, yet as the Wall Street Journal notes, leaves subsidies to insurers totaling an estimated $150 billion intact8. The Bush administration estimates the changes will result in a $10 trillion decrease in spending over the next 75 years. The proposed budget trumpets some broad themes, such as wanting to “encourage greater individual responsibility for health care choices and costs,” with few details about how they will be accomplished9.

Instead of cutting healthcare, President Bush is taking away the vital life lines of many Americans, denying them the freedom to live healthy and adequately. Instead of cutting healthcare funding, President Bush could increase it from the $386 billion it received in 2007 with some of the increased funds he intends to use for defence.

Other highlights of Bush’s budget includes: killing or cutting back sharply 151 programs to save $18 billion next year. Many of those cuts, however, have been proposed and rejected by Congress before, such as moves to eliminate community services grants to nonprofit groups that help the poor, a food program aimed at low-income seniors and grants to help states keep illegal immigrants convicted of felonies in jail. Lawmakers will surely restore proposed cuts to clean water grants, funding for local law enforcement and homeland security grants to states and local governments.

"Today's budget bears all the hallmarks of the Bush legacy — it leads to more deficits, more debt, more tax cuts, more cutbacks in critical services," 10 said House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, D-S.C.

It is apparent that under Bush, and his successors, the military-industrial complex will probably strengthen as America’s perpetual quest for global dominance will continue. With over 180 countries in the world, many are still available for the U.S to stake a new battleground for many defense budgets to come. Although few will become ever-more wealthy as a result, the balloon will one day pop, and the end result may be another World War.

[Top]