In Part1 of this series, I noted how far removed most of us in the United States are from those who serve in our armed forces. The number of Americans who have a close family member who is or has served in the military has steadily decreased over the last several decades from 75% to around 33%. That means that most people are not personally touched by these endless wars that our country is pursuing. Equally shocking is the number of members of Congress who have served in the military stands at only 18%, most of whom have never seen combat. It is another number that has been steadily decreasing over the years. This means that those who send our young people into battle have no concept of what war is really like and have no skin in the game either so they continue to allow these endless wars to proliferate.

As most of you know, I participate in a weekly Peace vigil. My primary reason for doing so is motivated by my moral abhorrence of war which I hope to write about in a subsequent diary. But another big motivator for my strong anti-war stance is that these wars are the most overt symbols of the corporate take over and corruption of our government, also known as the Military Industrial Complex.

On January 17, 1961, in his farewell address to the nation, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us of the military industrial complex. It is interesting to note that he also was advocating for a strong military at the same time.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Until World War II, our military was fairly lean and many existing industries would temporarily convert over to armament production when necessitated by war. With the bombing of Pearl Harbor and the drawing in of the United States into World War II, many military planners and politicians were concerned about how inadequate our military readiness was. As a result of those lessons and the ensuing Cold War, our military was expanded to be a much larger permanent force. And with that expansion came numerous opportunities for permanent military contractors, many of which came into being during WWII.

The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power.

Approximately 1/3 of all military spending worldwide is by the United States and it continues to grow. The United States is also the world's largest exporter of arms. A 2013 listing of the most profitable defense industry corporations shows that seven of the top ten most profitable defense industries are US corporations with the remaining three being European corporations. The continuation of existing wars and the threat of new wars makes the defense industry one of the most profitable industries around.

While Eisenhower used the term "military industrial complex" in his official speech, the original draft speech used a far more descriptive term, "military-industrial-Congressional complex." With the rise of a permanent arms industry, it was obvious to President Eisenhower that the balance of power between our Congress and the industries that could profit from war could be easily tipped in the direction of the armaments industries.

Although not the largest industry in terms of total contributions, the defense industry is invested in our Congress, not only through campaign contributions, but also with a major lobbying presence.

Individuals and political action committees associated with the defense sector contributed more than $27 million to political candidates and committees during the 2012 campaign cycle, with far more going to Republicans than Democrats: $16.4 million versus $11 million.

As an example, in 2013, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted (10-7) for an AUMF in Syria, The votes predictably fell along the lines of campaign contributions.

In raw dollars, the 10 senators voting in favor of the military authorization received a total of $728,000, for an average of $72,800.
...snip
On the other side, the seven senators who opposed military action in Syria received a total of $278,000 from defense interests, for an average of $39,000 per senator.

Further, not only is Congress in the pocket of the defense industry, but so are appointed officials throughout the government, such as Defense Secretary, Ashton Carter, through the revolving door system of lobbyists to elected or appointed officials and back into lobbyists.

His advocacy of more and longer wars is not the only troubling element of Carter’s track record. Between stints at the Pentagon, he has associated with defense-connected firms including MITRE, Goldman Sachs, Global Technology Partners and Textron.

More darkly, he more recently associated with a firm called SBD Advisors, which has advertised itself as working in Washington’s shadows so that “only the inner circle knows that we were involved,” according to the company.

It is a very costly system in which many defense contractors, both large and small, benefit from the rising and enormous cost of new military weapons such as demonstrated in this video.

In Part 3, I will write about the fiscal costs of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Editors note: This diary was originally written as an open thread so if the comments appear to be off topic, that is the reason.