Why The Military-Industrial Complex Does Not Win Wars
By American Liberty Report
It’s no secret that war is big business. For as long as there have been military organizations dependent on the riches of a nation or population, there have been people within the leadership class who are willing to use those riches in combination with the power of the military for their own enrichment.
When it comes to war, two things have always been true; the common people do not want it and must be convinced it is necessary, and those who do the convincing rarely do the fighting. This alone should inspire skepticism any time the leading class wants to send members of the population into war.
Unfortunately, for those who must summon the energy to do the fighting have a psychological necessity to be enthusiastic about war. This means they must be convinced of the need to fight before the war even starts. These, by and large, are our young men. They must be protected by the learned among the general population.
Necessarily, we have the ever-present question of whether a given war is justifiable. To make the question clearer, we may consider the analogy of urban combat. Suppose two neighbors who live one block apart both enjoy the services of a local bakery. Suppose both houses depend on that bakery to provide their food.
Now, suppose there is enough food for each house coming from the bakery with only one man and one woman in each house- two couples. Now, one couple has a child. There is no longer enough food. Suddenly, either both households must curtail their consumption, or one will have to enter austerity.
Once the problem of scarcity becomes too pronounced, there is the risk that one household may attempt to cut off the supply of baked goods to the other household. If this is done through some kind of sanction, you might call it a trade war. If it is done by defaming the other household by spreading defamatory messages in the neighborhood, you might call it a cold war.
If the household with the child tries to ingratiate themselves with the other household in order to attend dinners, barbecues and so on- you could look on it as analogous to an immigration crisis.
If, however, one family attempts to cut off the food supply to the other so as to create an existential threat to their neighbor- now you have an act of war, and violence may be on the horizon.
So it is clear that war is about the acquisition of resources by force. That being the case, it is undeniable that those with the authority to define a conflict and declare war may use it to enrich themselves. What’s more, since war is about acquiring resources by force, it stands to reason that those who have a vested interest in war may not wish for a given war to end.
After WW2, the Unites States becoming a superpower cast this fact into sharp relief, and the history of the US has since been fought with wars that go on for necessarily long periods of time.
In Vietnam, we fought a seemingly inexhaustible enemy for decades. What few people realize is that factions of our government were funneling weapons to the Vietcong through Russia. This was proven many times by the discovery of weapons manufactured in the US and labeled as Russian property in the hands of captured Vietcong fighters. The history of our involvement in wars in the Middle East follows a similar trope.
Today, we have a president who poses an existential threat to those with a vested interest in prolonged war. Donald Trump has shown that he is a threat to the military-industrial complex in two important ways. First, his assertion that friendly and peaceful relations with Russia are something to be desired. Second, the fact that he refuses to discuss military strategy publicly shows that if he enters a war, he will be doing so with the intention to win and, more importantly, to finish the war.
Both of these ideas are a threat to the sustainability of war as a business model. Making Russia into an ally deprives Corporate Hawks of a valuable scapegoat and innumerable channels for moving weapons secretly. Second, depriving them of advance knowledge of military action by keeping classified information classified makes it difficult for Corporate Hawks to invest in war futures.
It is reasonable, on this basis alone, that the entire Washington and media establishment has resisted the Trump presidency tooth and claw to preserve the institution of war for profit.