Why War?

Since the end of the Cold War and the end of the USSR as a global threat, there has been a constant push for continued and escalated war by certain elements both within the government and in influential think tanks and lobbying groups. Even in peacetime, interests tied to military contractors, weapons manufacturers and various other beneficiaries of military growth have exercised striking influence over the determination of American foreign policy.

The presidency of Bill Clinton marked a low point in the business of war, as the military was cut back to pre-Cold War levels and industries throughout the nation lost their largest client in the U.S. military. Despite the American involvement in the Balkans, military industries were left without vital business and saw a sharp decline in profits. With the election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the demand for military action that followed the attacks of September 11, these interests -- well represented in the Bush administration through numerous government officials' ties to military industries -- were blessed with not only a justification for substantial increases in military spending, but also a friendly administration more than willing to send business their way.

The most common mistake among average Americans in analyzing the policies of the government is the failure to recognize the vast influence wielded by large industries and well-connected individuals. The assumption that policies are drawn up and decided upon based solely on the perceived interests of the nation or the beliefs of government officials ignores the great importance of lobbyists and the wealthy, powerful interests that back them.

Most people's conception of lobbyists involves humble requests by companies to a hugely more powerful government, however the truth is that these private interests command substantial resources, and are taken very seriously by all branches of government. Those who hold the reigns of America's largest commercial giants and provide the tools of military power function as a virtually equal branch of government.

The constant exchange of ideas, favors and people between military industries on the one hand and Congress and the upper levels of the executive branch on the other make the two entities inseparable -- "civil servants" often pass back and forth between government posts and private-sector positions in what has been called a "revolving door" by Washington insiders. In return for the hugely profitable business provided by military growth, the commanders of military industry provide sizeable campaign contributions that help keep friendly officials in power.

The result of this is a melding of interests such that the policies of the government mirror the profit-driven interests of corporations. This is not to say that decisions are made solely according to the interests of these businesses, or that American foreign policy is not for the most part determined by government officials. The Bush administration, like past administrations who emphasized military power, sees military growth and war as essential to maintaining American power in the world, and shapes policy according to this belief. Military contractors and industries, however, do influence these policies insofar as they hold sway over high-level officials due to mutually beneficial arrangements, close personal ties or past business relationships.

The benefits derived from this close relationship are the expression of a naturally emerging symbiotic militarism -- government officials need to remain in power, and to have the tools of war in order to carry out their policies, while military industry needs increasing profits driven by constantly growing government contracts. The danger inherent in this relationship, which President Eisenhower warned of in his famous speech regarding the "military-industrial complex," is that the "tail" will begin to "wag the dog." It is when military might and war become separated from any reasonable policy determination and are pursued for their own sake -- as a catch-all solution to world problems and as an endless supply of profits -- that the relationship becomes unimaginably dangerous.

We have seen an apparently baseless determination to start war with Iraq, constant demand for escalation in Iraq and widening of the war throughout the Middle East, increasing hostility toward Iran, talk of an "Axis of Evil" and pre-emptive war, and an open declaration of intent to initiate war against any nation deemed to be insufficiently combating terrorist entities in their territory. This almost unbelievable pursuit of constant war leaves us no choice but to question just how far this "military-industrial complex" has devolved into an uncontrollable and irrational force.

It is impossible to determine the motives of the architects of this new hyper-militarism, however it is clear that their wars are giving us only instability and a progressively more threatening world. One need not be a pacifist to realize that the answer to terrorism given by the Bush administration was incorrect; that their foolish expectations and faith in war have failed utterly to bring about positive change.

In the face of uncontrollable chaos in Iraq and resurgent violence in an ungovernable Afghanistan, it is hard to imagine any reasoning that could lead to more war as an answer, yet the same voices who called for war with Iraq (and who promised quick victory, growing regional democracy and lasting peace) are busy agitating for escalation, expansion, and the inclusion of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and others in a new World War of choice. It is hard to come to any conclusion other than that the highest levels of power -- both private and governmental -- have lost themselves in their dreams of power and wealth, leaving the hard, bloody realities of a world on fire far behind.