The Profits of Perpetual Conflict: An Introduction
Why does it seem like there is always going to be a new war? The U.S. seems to be stuck in a cycle of endless military engagements. These range from Iraq and Afghanistan to Syria, Libya, and now Iran. This isn’t just about mistakes in foreign policy or failures of intelligence, though. It has to do with money. A lot of money.
Seymour Melman, an economist, came up with the term “permanent war economy” in the middle of the 20th century. He said that America’s growing reliance on military spending would hurt its economy and democracy. His warnings seem to have come true today. When defense contractors pay for think tanks, which then fill news panels and give politicians advice, peace is the norm. The plan is to go to war.
The Business Model of War
The defense contractors are the most important part of the war economy. Every year, the Pentagon gives billions of dollars in contracts to companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing. The US defense budget in 2023 exceeded 850 billion dollars. This amount is greater than the combined budgets of the next ten countries.
War zones turn into places to do business:
Weapons systems such as fighter jets, drones, and missile defense systems
Private military companies like Blackwater and DynCorp
Surveillance tools, such as systems that can recognize faces
Companies that handle logistics and supplies, like KBR and Halliburton
Peace, on the other hand, puts this whole thing at risk.
Expert Opinion:
William Hartung, a senior research fellow at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, says that we have created a situation. A massive network of interests depends on the military being active all the time. This network includes businesses, politicians, and the media. If the war ends, budgets will have to be cut. Workers will have to be let go. Facilities will have to be shut down. That makes it hard to make peace in both politics and the economy.
The Feedback Loop for the Think Tank
The American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Atlantic Council are think tanks. They regularly write policy papers. They also comment on the news that calls for military action. Weapons makers or friendly governments directly pay for many of them.
For instance, Raytheon has paid for events at CSIS while its former executives work in U.S. defense departments. This revolving door makes it so that military solutions are always preferred to diplomatic ones.
Media Amplification and Control of the Story
Chris Hedges, a journalist who used to work for the New York Times, says:
“The media gives people who shouldn’t be taken seriously a lot of power. They repeatedly consult voices that have been discredited. This happens not because these voices are experts, but because of who they represent.
Media outlets, which are more interested in ratings than in the truth, often spread stories that support war. The lead-up to the Iraq War in 2003 is the most famous example. During that time, networks kept saying things that weren’t true about weapons of mass destruction.
We see the same kinds of coverage of Iran today. People who are against interventionist policies are pushed to the side. In contrast, people who are for war are given a lot of attention.
The Human Cost of Making Money
People suffer while businesses make money. Brown University’s Costs of War Project says that:
More than 900,000 people have died in wars led by the U.S. since 9/11.
38 million people have had to leave their homes.
Direct and indirect costs have totaled eight trillion dollars.
This isn’t just a problem in the United States. It is a tragedy that happens all over the world because of money.
Is it possible to break the cycle?
More and more lawmakers, veterans, and academics are speaking out. The Quincy Institute and Veterans for Peace are two groups that want the U.S. to change its priorities. They want the U.S. to choose diplomacy over drones and aid over weapons.
Senator Bernie Sanders has said:
Reducing food aid and health programs is misguided. Allocating 850 billion dollars to the Pentagon is not only wrong, but it’s also detrimental to the economy.
But being angry isn’t enough to end the war economy. It calls for systemic change, closing revolving doors, and stopping the funding of propaganda.
In conclusion, a world without war
A permanent war economy makes it hard to find peace. But if war makes money, then peace needs to be made useful. That means backing voices that ask questions, pushing for journalism that looks into things, and holding leaders accountable.
We will stay stuck in a cycle with no end. There will be new enemies and new weapons. We will see no real peace in sight. This will continue until we question the profit motives behind every airstrike and deployment.