Resources For Week Three Discussion On Defense Spending

Resources For Week Three Discussion Defense Spending And The Militar

Resources for Week Three Discussion – Defense Spending and the Military-Industrial Complex Before participating in this week’s discussion, “Defense Spending and the Military-Industrial Complex,” review these resources: 1. Read this chapter from the text, American Government: a. Chapter 6 – The Executive Branch 2. Read the following article from the ProQuest (Search All) database in the Ashford University Library: a. Ike’s speech (on the military industrial complex). Newton, J. (2010, December 20). Ike’s speech. The New Yorker, 86(41), 42. (This brief article shows how former President Eisenhower strongly believed in the dangers posed by the military industrial complex which he warned of in his farewell address.) 3. Watch the following videos: a. A More Perfect Union Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). (2013, May 7). Episode I - A more perfect union [Series episode]. Constitution USA with Peter Sagal. Retrieved from sagal/watch/a-more-perfect-union/ b. Iron Triangles Mypoliscilab. (2011, June 22). Video glossary: Iron triangles [Video]. Retrieved from 4. Read three of the following articles: a. The modern military-industrial complex. Huey-Burns, C. (2011, January). The modern military-industrial complex. U.S. News & World Report, 1. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library. (This short interview reviews how the military, defense contractors, and Congress work in tandem to increase military spending.) b. You can’t kill F-22, Georgians tell Gates. Jonsson, P. (2009, April 8). You can’t kill F-22, Georgians tell Gates. The Christian Science Monitor, 2. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library. (This brief article describes an example of the "iron triangle" in defense procurement – a manufacturer (including its unions), the military, and Congress working together on expensive projects in the name of "national security.") c. The iron triangle’s impact on the federal budget. Marotta, G. The iron triangle’s impact on the federal budget. Vital Speeches of the Day, 51(4), . Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford University Library. (This speech describes the contributions of Congress, the bureaucracy and lobbyists to the federal deficit.) d. Cutting the budget with a wet noodle. Nelson, R. H. (1995). Cutting the budget with a wet noodle. Forbes. p. 146. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. (This brief article describes old proposals by House Republicans to eliminate several federal departments which survive chiefly because they have mastered the infamous "iron triangle.") e. Smelt the iron triangle. (2007, January 11). Smelt the iron triangle. The Washington Times, A20. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library. (This brief article critiques pork-barrel spending that supports defense industry overcapacity and bloated Pentagon budgets, protected by the iron triangle of the military, industry, and Congress.) f. Does removal of term limits portend revival of the committee system? Wolfensberger, D. (2009, February 17). Does removal of term limits portend revival of the committee system? Roll Call. Retrieved from ProQuest (Search All) database, in the Ashford University Library. (This brief article discusses how the absence of term-limits on congressional committee chairs strengthens iron triangles that make them less accountable to Congress and the voters.)

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The relationship between defense spending and the military-industrial complex has been a subject of intense scrutiny and debate in American politics and policy. The concept of the military-industrial complex, first articulated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address, refers to the close relationships among the military establishment, defense contractors, and Congress, which collectively influence and often dictate U.S. defense policies and budgets. This paper explores this relationship, its implications for national security, fiscal policy, and democratic accountability, grounded in scholarly resources, government analyses, and documented historical examples.

The Foundations of the Military-Industrial Complex

In his farewell speech in 1961, Eisenhower warned of the potential dangers posed by the military-industrial complex, emphasizing the need for vigilance to prevent its undue influence over national policy (Newton, 2010). The complexity of this relationship is rooted in mutual interests: defense contractors seek lucrative government contracts, Congress aims to secure local economic benefits from defense projects, and the military requires advanced technology and weapons systems. This triad creates a self-perpetuating cycle that often leads to increased defense expenditure regardless of broader strategic necessities.

Iron Triangles and Their Role in Defense Policy

The concept of the “iron triangle”—the tight, mutually beneficial relationship among congressional committees, the bureaucracy, and interest groups—exemplifies how defense policy and spending are often insulated from broader legislative oversight (Mypoliscilab, 2011). For example, defense contractors lobby Congress for continued or increased spending on military projects like the F-22 fighter jet, which exemplifies how these powerful alliances resist budget cuts, even when such programs are questioned or considered obsolete (Jonsson, 2009). The iron triangle’s influence extends to the federal budget, contributing to persistent deficits and excessive military expenditures that may surpass strategic needs (Marotta, n.d.).

Implications for Federal Budget and Accountability

The effects of this complex web are significant for fiscal discipline and democratic accountability. Campaign contributions from defense firms may sway congressional support for ongoing projects, manipulating legislative priorities in favor of industry interests over national or public interests (Nelson, 1995). Furthermore, the removal of term limits for committee chairs can embolden entrenched interests, further strengthening the iron triangle’s grip on defense policy, reducing oversight, and fostering pork-barrel spending (Wolfensberger, 2009). These factors contribute to inflated defense budgets, often with little transparency or accountability to the public.

Case Study: The F-22 Raptor

The case of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet exemplifies the military-industrial complex’s impact on procurement decisions. Despite concerns about high costs and delays, political and industry interests strongly supported its continuation (Jonsson, 2009). Efforts to terminate or scale back the program faced formidable opposition from contractors and congressional proponents who argued for the jet’s strategic importance. This example demonstrates how vested interests can override cost assessments, leading to prolonged spending and resource allocation that benefit certain industry players while presenting opportunity costs for taxpayers.

Reform and Challenges

Reform efforts aimed at curbing the influence of the military-industrial complex include increasing transparency, reforming campaign finance laws, and establishing stricter oversight on defense contracts. However, these efforts are often stymied by the entrenched power of the iron triangle, which resists change to preserve economic interests and political advantages (Huey-Burns, 2011). The removal of term limits for committee chairs, for instance, has been linked to the revival of the committee system that further consolidates power and minimizes accountability (Wolfensberger, 2009). Thus, meaningful reform faces significant institutional and political obstacles.

Conclusion

The enduring influence of the military-industrial complex underscores the importance of vigilant oversight and reform to align defense spending with genuine national security needs and public accountability. Understanding the dynamics of the iron triangle, the entrenched interests of defense contractors, Congress, and the military, is essential for fostering a more transparent, efficient, and democratic defense policy. Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive policy changes and a vigilant electorate committed to transparency and fiscal responsibility.

References

• Huey-Burns, C. (2011, January). The modern military-industrial complex. U.S. News & World Report, 1. Retrieved from ProQuest database.
• Jonsson, P. (2009, April 8). You can’t kill F-22, Georgians tell Gates. The Christian Science Monitor.
• Marotta, G. The iron triangle’s impact on the federal budget. (n.d.). Vital Speeches of the Day, 51(4).
• Newton, J. (2010, December 20). Ike’s speech. The New Yorker, 86(41), 42.
• Nelson, R. H. (1995). Cutting the budget with a wet noodle. Forbes, p. 146.
• Wolfensberger, D. (2009, February 17). Does removal of term limits portend revival of the committee system? Roll Call.