No subject

are portrayed as evidence of the existence of terrorists, of the
"enemies of the people," or of "enemy combatant" without, at the same
time, having to show what the alleged evidence really is, or who the
alleged "enemy combatants" really are=97as would be required in an open
court of law. Combined with warrantless wiretapping, electronic
surveillance, and various types of illegal searches, this prison
system serves yet another objective of the beneficiaries of war
dividends: inspiration of fear and cultivation of silence and
obedience among citizens, which means subversion of democracy and
promotion of authoritarianism.

James Madison warned against such an ominous symbiosis of war and
authoritarianism long time ago: "Of all the enemies of public liberty,
war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and
develops the germ of every other." The Congress of the United States
of America had earlier (1784) issued a similar warning against
authoritarian consequences of maintaining a large military
establishment during times of peace: "standing armies in time of peace
are inconsistent with the principles of republican governments,
dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted
into destructive engines for establishing despotism."[23]

But perhaps the strongest and most well-known warning against the
baleful consequences of a large peace-time military establishment came
from President Dwight Eisenhower: "The conjunction of an immense
military establishment and a huge arms industry is new in the American
experience. The total influence=97economic, political, and even
spiritual=97is felt in every city, every state house, and every office
of the federal government. . . . In the councils of government, we
must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex" (Farewell
Address, January 17, 1961).

Eisenhower's warning that "we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence" of the military-industrial complex is more
relevant today than when it was issued nearly half a century ago. The
steadily rising=97and now perhaps monopolizing and overwhelming=97power
and influence of the Complex over both domestic and foreign policies
of the United States is testament to the unfortunate realization of
Eisenhower's nightmare. As Howard Swint, Democratic candidate for
Congress in West Virginia, put it: "The seat of power for formulating
foreign policy and defense strategy is not in the White House but
rather in the Pentagon. While a civilian Commander-in-Chief may tweak
policy in four-year increments, it's obvious that military careerists
together with major defense contractors effectively control the
Congressional budget process and drive defense appropriations."[24]

7. Parasitic Imperialism Leads to Dependence on, or Addiction to, War
and Militarism

The fact that the Pentagon appropriates and controls more than
one-third of the entire Federal budget has allowed it to forge the
largest constituency and/or dependents nationwide. Tens of thousands
of businesses, millions of jobs, and thousands of cities and
communities have become dependent on military spending. While a
handful of major contractors take the lion's share of military
spending, millions more have become dependent on it as the source of
their livelihood.

It is not surprising then that not many people are willing to oppose
the continuing rise in the Pentagon budget=97even if they might
philosophically be opposed to militarism and large military spending.
Because of the widespread presence of military installations and
production sites nationwide, few politicians can afford not to support
a continued rise in military spending lest that should hurt their
communities or constituencies economically.

This helps explain the vicious and spiraling circle of war,
international political convulsions, and military spending: Major
Pentagon contractors and other powerful beneficiaries of war dividends
are dependent on continued war and militarism in order to maintain and
expand hefty profits. This dependence has, in turn, created a
secondary (or derived) dependence; it is the dependence of millions of
Americans on military spending as the source of their livelihood,
which then plays into the hands of war profiteers in their perennial
quest for ever newer enemies, newer wars, and bigger appropriations
for the Pentagon=97hence the addiction to and the vicious circle of war
profiteering, international political tension, war,  and military
spending.

Concluding Remarks=97Parasitic Imperialism: A Most Dangerous Type of Imperi=
alism

Dependence on, or addiction to, war and militarism for profitability
makes U.S military imperialism (that is, imperialism driven by
military capital, or arms conglomerates, vis-=E0-vis non-military
transnational capital) a most dangerous kind of imperialism. Under the
rule of the past imperial powers, the conquered and subjugated peoples
or nations could live in peace=97imposed peace, to be sure=97if they
respected the interests and the needs of those imperial powers and
simply resigned to their political and economic ambitions.

Not so in the case of the U.S. military-industrial empire: the
interests of this empire are nurtured through "war dividends." Peace,
imposed or otherwise, is viewed by the beneficiaries of war dividends
inimical to their interests as it would make justification of
continued increases of their share of national resources (in the form
of Pentagon appropriations) difficult.

Of course, tendencies to build bureaucratic empires have always
existed in the ranks of military hierarchies. By itself, this is not
what makes the U.S. military-industrial complex more dangerous than
the military powers of the past. What makes it more dangerous is the
"industrial," or business, part of the Complex. In contrast to the
United States' military or war industries, arms industries of past
empires were not subject to capitalist market imperatives.
Furthermore, those industries were often owned and operated by
imperial governments, not by market-driven giant corporations.
Consequently, as a rule, arms production was dictated by war
requirements, not by market or profit imperatives, which is the case
with today's U.S. armaments industry.

About the author:

Ismael Hossein-zadeh is an economics professor at Drake University,
Des Moines, Iowa. This article draws upon his recently published book,
The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan
Publishers)

References

[1] William D. Hartung, "Bush Military Budget Highest Since WW II,"
Common Dreams (10 February 2007).

[2] Bill Rigby, "Defense stocks may jump higher with big profits,"
Reuter (12 April 2006).

[3] Shakir F. et al., Center for American Progress Action Fund, "The
Progress Report" (6 February 2007).

[4] Robert Greenstein, "Despite the Rhetoric, Budget Would Make
Nation's Fiscal Problems Worse and Further Widen Inequality," Center
for Budget and Policy Priorities (6 February 2007).

[5] Ibid.

[6] Richard Du Boff, "What Military Spending Really Costs," Challenge
32 (September/October 1989), pp. 4=9610.

[7] Congressional Budget Office, Historical Effective Federal Tax
Rates: 1979 to 2004, as reported by Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities.

[8] Tax Policy Center, Table T06-0279, and Table T06-0273.

[9] American Society of Civil Engineers, "What can happen if America
fails to invest in its infrastructure? Anything," news release (4
September 2003).

[10] Seymour Melman, "They Are All Implicated: In the Grip of
Permanent War Economy," Counterpunch.com (15 March2003).

[11] Ibid.

[12] M. Rothschild, "Katrina Compounded," The Progressive (1 September 2005=
).

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] AME Info, "Coke and Pepsi battle it out," (8 April 2004).

[16] Ibid.

[17] Jim Lobe, "Poll: War Bad for Business," antiwar.com (30 December 2004)=
.

[18] Ibid.

[19] James Cox, "Financially ailing companies point to Iraq war," USA
Today (14 July 2004).

[20] Ibid.

[21] Paul Kennedy, The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (New York,
NY: Vintage Books 1989); Chalmers Johnson, The Sorrows of Empire (New
York, NY: Metropolitan Books 2004); Ismael Hossein-zadeh, The
Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan2006).

[22] Naomi Wolf, "Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps," AlterNet.org (28
April 2007),

[23] Sidney Lens, The Military-Industrial Complex (Kansas City,
Missouri: Pilgrim Press & the National Catholic Reporter 1979).

[24] Swint, Howard, "The Pentagon Ruled by Special Interests"

... Payvand News - 7/9/07 ...