|
The term military-industrial complex (MIC) refers to a close and symbiotic relationship between a nation's armed forces, its arms industry, and associated political and commercial interests. In such a system, the military is dependent on industry to supply materiel and other support, while the defense industry depends on government for a steady revenue stream. The term is most often used in reference to the United States, where it was coined in a speech by President Dwight Eisenhower. As pejorative terms, the "MIC" or the "iron triangle" refer to an institutionalised collusion among defense contractors (industry), The Pentagon (military), and the United States government (Congress, Executive branch), as a cartel that works against the public interest, whose motivation is profiteering.
History According to historian William H. McNeill, the first modern military-industrial complexes arose in Britain and France in the 1880s and 1890s. The naval rivalry between these two powers was of utmost significance in the fomentation of this first MIC's growth and development. Officers like John Fisher influenced the shift toward faster technological integration (which meant closer relationships with private, innovative companies). Similar military-industrial complexes soon followed in nations like Germany, Japan, and the United States. Industrialists who played a part in the arms industry of this era included Alfred Krupp, Samuel Colt, William Armstrong, and Joseph Whitworth. Origin of the term The first public use of the term was by the Union of Democratic Control, formed by Sir Charles Trevelyan in the United Kingdom on 5 August 1914. Point Four of their pacifist manifesto declared, "4. National armaments should be limited by mutual agreement, and the pressures of the military-industrial complex regulated by the nationalisation of armaments firms and control over the arms trade". President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower later used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961: 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. In the penultimate draft of the address, Eisenhower initially used the term military-industrial-congressional complex, and thus indicated the essential role that U.S. Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry. But, it is said, that the president chose to strike the word congressional in order to placate members of the legislative branch of the federal government. The author of the term was Eisenhower's speech-writer Malcolm Moos. Vietnam War-era activists referred frequently to the concept. In the late 1990s James Kurth asserted that "by the mid-1980s . . . the term had largely fallen out of public discussion," and opined that "whatever the power of arguments about the influence of the military-industrial complex on weapons procurement during the Cold War, they are much less relevant to the current era." Contemporary students and critics of American militarism continue to refer to and employ the term, however. For example, historian Chalmers Johnson uses words from the second, third, and fourth paragraphs quoted above from Eisenhower's address as an epigraph to Chapter Two ("The Roots of American Militarism") of a recent volume on this subject (The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004, p. 39). The expressions permanent war economy and war corporatism are related concepts that have also been used in association with this term. Although the term was originally coined to describe U.S. circumstances, historians and political analysts apply the term MIC to comparable collusion in other countries. It was not unusual to see it as a description of arms production industries and political structures of the Soviet Union, and any other countries with an arms-producing economy, such as Wilhelminian Germany, Britain, France and post-Soviet Russia. The expression is also sometimes associated with the European Union. See also Sources Notes Further reading | ||||||||
|
| |||||||||
 |
|
| |