Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Defense Contractors Insulated from Budget Cuts

Defense contractors will not feel the pinch in the recently announced military spending reductions.

Print Friendly

Inter Press Service

In one of U.S. president Dwight D. Eisenhower's most remembered speeches, he warned against "the acquisition of unwarranted influence" resulting from the close brotherhood between the country's defense agencies, Capitol Hill and private business interests.

Fifty years later, the Republican leader's Jan. 17, 1961 admonition of the military-industrial–Congressional complex is as relevant as ever, argues William D. Hartung, director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation based here.

Despite U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates's announcement last week of a 78-billion-dollar reduction in Pentagon spending by 2016, analysts predict that defense contractors – the "industry" leg of the so-called "iron triangle" alluded to in Eisenhower's speech – will come away largely unscathed.

"If you were looking for an apt metaphor to describe what happened to makers of military hardware on Thursday, you might say they 'dodged the bullet,'" said Loren B. Thompson, chief operating officer of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute.

Overall, the budget savings announced last week are modest, analysts say.

"The numbers that we're talking about are relatively small," Gates said at a press conference Thursday. "The focus here is on a reduction in the rate of growth, as opposed to absolute cuts."

According to some estimates, defense spending since the new millennium has about tripled to nearly 900 billion dollars for 2011. Gates's 78-billion-dollar five-year reduction plan is thus a decline of only less than two percent, without accounting for inflation.

"We vastly overspend on the military," said Gordon Adams, an expert on U.S. foreign affairs and defense budgeting at the Stimson Centre, at a panel discussion here Tuesday.

"We vastly overuse the military tool. We vastly overdramatize the military as the conceptual framework of our global engagement," he said. "And we vastly over-worry and overestimate the threats and challenges that we face in the world."

In Adams's estimation, despite being in the midst of a defense budget "build-down" – as cautious as it is – even deeper cuts would not affect the readiness or ability of U.S. troops. "The capacity of the United States military is stunning," he said.

Underlying this capacity is a small cadre of private defense contractors. According to Danielle Brian, executive director of the Washington D.C.-based Project on Government Oversight, more than half of the nation's defense budget is spent on contracts and the top 10 firms receive about 25 percent of these contracts.

Early last week, shares in leading defense companies dipped in anticipation of Gates's cuts. But the marketplace gave its verdict when, after the secretary's announcement, holdings again rose when investors realized the budget reshuffle would only modestly impact operations – an assessment confirmed by a Standard & Poor's report, published Monday, reaching the same conclusion.

Some see a link between this insulation of contractors in a time of belt-tightening to these companies' fleet of lobbyists, history of generous political donations, and the "revolving door" of influential personnel who travel easily back-and-forth between important posts in government and defense firms.

In his new book, 'Prophets of War' (Nation), Hartung exposes the myriad of connections – mostly fiscal, often human – between the U.S. government and its most favored firm, the Lockheed Martin Corporation, which he claims consistently pushes for overpriced and unnecessary defense programs.

Lockheed Martin, the country's top contractor, spent 15 million dollars in campaign contributions and lobbying last year and its top staff have filled key positions in both the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations.

Outpacing its closest competitor by nearly 30 percent, the aerospace and security corporation received about 36 billion dollars in federal contracts in 2008, with over four-fifths of that pie coming from the Pentagon.

But the contracts aren't all for cluster bombs, stealth fighter jets and nuclear weapons, Hartung shows. Lockheed Martin also provides services for a multitude of domestic agencies, including the U.S. Census, the Department of Education, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Postal Service and the Smithsonian Institution, among others.

And, as is often found in the grand tradition of U.S. public-private partnerships involving multinational corporations, the company also has a hand in U.S. foreign policy, Hartung writes.

"Lockheed Martin has done everything from supplying interrogators for U.S. military prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to staffing a human rights monitoring mission in Darfur, to training police in Haiti, to running a postal service in the Democratic Republic of Congo, to helping to write the Afghan constitution," he explains.

In light of last week's budget reshuffle, Lockheed Martin will have to undergo a two-year probationary period for the production of a certain model of its F-35 fighter jets due to performance glitches. However, overall production of the firm's F-35 fleet will remain the same, Gates said.

And according to Thompson, the company will even benefit from expanded Air Force purchases in the near future, with other top contractors like the Boeing Company and the Northrup Grumman Corporation also standing to gain from green-lighted projects, despite the announced reductions.

Half a century ago, Eisenhower warned, "The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

For Hartung, "If there was ever a need for the engagement and awareness urged by President Eisenhower the time is now."

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Mike Pompeo (R-KS) is a conservative Republican congressman who was voted into office as part of the “tea party” surge in 2011 and nominated by Donald Trump to be director of the CIA.


Although better known for his domestic platform promoting “limited” government, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has expressed strong sympathies for projecting U.S. military power abroad.


James “Mad Dog” Mattis is a retired U.S Marine Corps general and combat veteran who served as commander of U.S. Central Command during 2010-2013 before being removed by the Obama administration reportedly because of differences over Iran policy.


Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) was one of Congress’s staunchest foreign policy hawks and a “pro-Israel” hardliner.


A self-styled terrorism “expert” who claims that the killing of Osama bin Laden strengthened Al Qaeda, former right-wing Lebanese militia member Walid Phares wildly claims that the Obama administration gave the Muslim Brotherhood “the green light” to sideline secular Egyptians.


Weekly Standard editor and PNAC cofounder Bill Kristol is a longtime neoconservative activist and Washington political operative.


Kelly Ayotte was a Republican senator from New Hampshire who is close to right-wing and neoconservative factions.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Spurred by anti-internationalist sentiment among conservative Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration, the US is headed for a new confrontation with the UN over who decides how much the US should pay for peacekeeping.


Print Friendly

Decent developments in the Trump administration indicate that the neoconservatives, at one point on the margins of Washington’s new power alignments, are now on the ascendent?


Print Friendly

As the end of Donald Trump’s first 100 days as president approaches, it seems that his version of an “America-first” foreign policy is in effect a military-first policy aimed at achieving global hegemony, which means it’s a potential doomsday machine.


Print Friendly

Hopeful that Donald Trump may actually be their kind of guy, neoconservatives are full of praise for the cruise-missile strike against Syria and are pressing for more.


Print Friendly

Steve Bannon’s removal from the NSC’s Principals Committee doesn’t mean that he’s gone from the White House or no longer exerts a powerful influence on Trump. His office is still located very close to the Oval Office, and there’s nothing to indicate that his dark and messianic worldview has changed.


Print Friendly

Promoting sanctions that could undermine the Iran nuclear deal, pushing security assistance for Israel, combatting BDS, and more.


Print Friendly

Contrary to some wishful thinking following the Trump administration’s decision to “put Iran on notice” and seemingly restore U.S.-Saudi ties, there are little signs of apprehension in Tehran.


RightWeb
share