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

The Foreign Policy Initiative, founded in 2009 by a host of neoconservative figures, was a leading advocate for a militaristic and Israel-centric U.S. foreign policies.


Billionaire investor Paul Singer is the founder and CEO of the Elliott Management Corporation and an important funder of neoconservative causes.


Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is known for his hawkish views on foreign policy and close ties to prominent neoconservatives.


Ron Dermer is the Israeli ambassador to the United States and a close confidante of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.


Blackwater Worldwide founder Erik Prince is notorious for his efforts to expand the use of private military contractors in conflict zones.


U.S. Defense Secretary 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.


Mark Dubowitz, an oft-quoted Iran hawk, is the executive director of the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

The time has come for a new set of partnerships to be contemplated between the United States and Middle East states – including Iran – and between regimes and their peoples, based on a bold and inclusive social contract.


Print Friendly

Erik Prince is back. He’s not only pitching colonial capitalism in DC. He’s huckstering ex-SF-led armies of sepoys to wrest Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and perhaps, if he is ever able to influence likeminded hawks in the Trump administration, even Iran back from the infidels.


Print Friendly

Encouraged by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s statement late last month that Washington favors “peaceful” regime change in Iran, neoconservatives appear to be trying to influence the internal debate by arguing that this is Trump’s opportunity to be Ronald Reagan.


Print Friendly

When asked about “confidence in the U.S. president to do the right thing in world affairs,” 22 percent of those surveyed as part of a recent Pew Research Center global poll expressed confidence in Donald Trump and 74 percent expressed no confidence.


Print Friendly

A much-awaited new State Department volume covering the period 1951 to 1954 does not reveal much new about the actual overthrow of Mohammad Mossadeq but it does provide a vast amount of information on US involvement in Iran.


Print Friendly

As debate continues around the Trump administration’s arms sales and defense spending, am new book suggests several ways to improve security and reduce corruption, for instance by increasing transparency on defense strategies, including “how expenditures on systems and programs align with the threats to national security.”


Print Friendly

Lobelog We walked in a single file. Not because it was tactically sound. It wasn’t — at least according to standard infantry doctrine. Patrolling southern Afghanistan in column formation limited maneuverability, made it difficult to mass fire, and exposed us to enfilading machine-gun bursts. Still, in 2011, in the Pashmul District of Kandahar Province, single…


RightWeb
share