Military Industrial Complex Foreign Aid

Military/Industrial

What is the military-industrial complex? Which president first expressed concern about this trend and why?

Lately the world has seen an increase in conflict and war. This is because war and armed conflict is increasingly being used in place of negotiations and talks to resolve crisis. The use of brute force, especially by America in the wake of the war on terror has increased with America spreading its armed forces all across the globe, be it Afghanistan, Iraq, the Arab Spring uprisings, Pakistan and the list goes on. The military-industrial complex is seen by a few experts as the reason behind increasing conflict, and this in turn has affected the equilibrium and the rationale of comparative politics. Before we go on to discuss the relationship of the military-industrial conflict to the increase in world conflicts, it is important to know what it entails.

The military industrial complex refers to policy as well as monetary relationships which exist between the government, the armed forces and the private industries. The first President who was aggrieved about it, and saw it as a particular fallacy of the democratic system in America was President Eisenhower who used the term in his farewell speech warning against its drawbacks.

The impact that this 'iron triangle' has on world relationships is in the following manner. Industrialists who are manufacturing weapons also lobby in the government. As the demand for weapons, on the back of an increase in armed conflict is high, they have enough financial power to back the government senators. Moreover these lobbyists also back up election campaigns so that when these candidates are successfully in the government they can make legislations and vote for bills that are in favor of weapon manufacturers. These same legislators also decide upon how America is going to side with other nations, and when there is an opportunity, armed conflict is engaged in by the military so that the demand for weapons can be sustained, bringing in more money for the industrialists.

This was what the President was talking about in his farewell speech and this is the trend that can be seen in America's foreign policy today. America has engaged in two wars, and while Afghanistan's war was on the pretext of the war on terror, the war on Iraq in search of non-existent chemical weapons has been termed to be a mistake and has failed. And yet America continues to back rebels in Libya, Egypt, Yemen as well as having been active in opposing Fidel Castro in Cuba. Such intervention on the back of America being hit by recession indicates an anomaly. This is because on one hand, the Obama government is seeking to increase taxation in order to gain much needed revenue to boost public spending and increase aggregate demand. However, on the other hand, the government continues to attack Pakistan, operate in the Arab Spring regions and fund its war on Iraq.

This complex has brought to light how a principle-agent problem has given rise to a world torn with conflict. While the government is the agent for its people, the lobbying arrangement has divided the loyalties of the government so that it can either serve the industrialists or it can serve its people. In the cases mentioned here, the government seems to be favoring the industrialists.

There are arguments that the country does not have such aims as it cannot compromise the position of the country and it cannot peril its people for fear of retaliation. However such an argument cannot be accepted as America is in a strong military position and its security is tight and there have not been any attacks on American soil.

The military-industrial complex thus is a policy and financial relationship that divides the loyalty of the American legislators and the military and is one of the reasons for the increase in world conflict in the recent years. It needs to be understood and borne in mind before considering any political strategy.

Why does the United States give foreign aid? What are at least two reasons why countries receive more than others? What are at least two arguments against U.S. foreign aid?

Foreign aid has often been given by the United States as a means to aid the developing countries, or for emergency situations, as well as for increasing its sphere of influence and to gain allies in the process. Foreign aid can be in the form of financial aid or in the form of technical as well as financial assistance. This aid has historically also been tied with other strategic objective. An example is the Marshall Plan which was done with Europe after the Second World War and was tied to Europe repaying its debt partially by buying goods from America. (Hook)

Foreign aid is an important tool in comparative politics and in relationship building. In fact refusing or withholding aid can also be considered a punishment for nations that are not conforming and can be used as tact to force them to comply.

The reasons for giving foreign aid vary with the nation under consideration. For example, Pakistan gets and got aid due to its strategic position with which it serves as an access point for the Middle East and serves as a base against Afghanistan. As far as other countries such as Europe after the World War is concerned, the aid was given to aid America's trade partner and in order to create a market for its goods.

African countries also receive aid, but the reason for that is mainly due to the fact that the region is very poor and the people are starving. However the rationale behind aid can falter as understood by recent studies and expert analysis. According to Dambisa, in her book 'Dead Aid' she relates the examples of African countries where aid has not helped but has been deposited in the pockets of a few government officials. In fact it has led to rampant corruption and has not trickled down to the masses as was the objective. Neither has it led to the development of the economy, in fact policy-makers are amassing wealth and the situation in the system is deteriorating by the day.