The Military Industrial Complex in the Conflict for Power. MUST READ

[Dover]

I just stumbled on this and haven't finished reading it yet...but VERY VERY INTERESTING!


The George W. Bush administration launched the most serious challenge to
the transnational capitalist class since the beginning of the globalist project.
To understand the nature and depth of this conflict an updated study of
the military/industrial complex was needed which combined an economic
and political analysis that exposed the strategic differences within the
capitalist class.


THE MILITARY/INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
IN THE CONFLICT FOR POWER
BY JERRY HARRIS

“Power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
-- Mao Tse-tung

After W.W. II the U.S. had unquestioned hegemony throughout the
capitalist world. But in the early 1970s U.S. power began a long decline,
particularly as the economies in Europe and Japan recovered. Still, the
U.S. maintained leadership by providing military security for the West.
But with the collapse of the Soviet Union there was a basic shift in this
arrangement. The U.S. security umbrella was no longer needed and
previous American economic hegemony had long passed its peak.
Alongside this strategic change was the emerging revolution in
information technology. As information capitalism became firmly rooted
in all the advanced countries a system of economic and political
globalization rapidly developed. These changing world conditions
presented two choices to the U.S. ruling class; either fully integrate into a
globalized system of world capitalism or reassert hegemony through
military power. Globalization became the choice of consensus, backed by
rapidly growing transnational corporations, the immense power of
speculative finance, a surge in cross cultural exchanges and a
technological boom that pointed to a new economy. For most leaders in
the U.S. and West the Soviet collapse had created the conditions to build
a new integrated multilateral system.
2
But beneath the new global system remained a powerful nationalist
wing within the U.S. capitalist class. These elements retained a solid base
of support in the military/industrial complex (MIC), the structural heart of
U.S. superpower status. The hegemonists bloc consist of geopolitical
realists and neoconservatives and both believe the defeat of the USSR
provided the opportunity for a unilateral U.S. empire. This strategy was
laid-out in a pivotal policy paper published in 1997 by the neoconservative
think tank Project for the New American Century, and signed
onto by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney and other top
White House officials.
As the paper reads, “Having led the West to victory America faces
an opportunity and a challenge…Does the United States have the resolve
to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
What is required is a military that is strong…a foreign policy that boldly
and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national
leadership that accepts the United State’s global responsibilities…At
present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy
should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into
the future as possible (and maintain) unquestioned U.S. military
preeminence (to prevent) others an opportunity to shape the world in
ways antithetical to American interests.” (Donnelly, 1997, i)
This vision drives the Bush administration and is a sharp challenge
to the globalist strategy followed throughout the 1990s. This conflict for
power between the globalist and hegemonist wings of the U.S. capitalism
is key to understanding the current world and stems from the undermining
of the old nation/state by globalization. A world economy based on global
assembly lines and run by transnational capitalists has outgrown the use of
nationalist armies protecting and extending national markets. Security was
redefined as global stability to facilitate cross border investments. As
pointed out by the Institute for National Strategic Studies, “Almost
everywhere, countries face the task of harmonizing their foreign economic
policies with their national security strategies. China and Russia both face
this challenge, as do the Europeans and the Japanese. So does the United
States.” (Kugler, 2000a, 8)
To understand the nature of this conflict let me begin by suggesting the
capitalist class consist of different networks of power and interests. These
3
would include economic networks of productive and finance capital; political
networks that dominate the state apparatus, intellectual circles and the leading
political parties; cultural networks that include media, academic and religious
forces; and the military/industrial complex (MIC). These networks are
interconnected and overlap but are also internally divided into various
fractions, the most important consisting of globalist and nationalist interests.
...cont'd

http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Papers/JerryHarris_MilitaryIndustrialComplex.pdf

[Singular73]

1. Unbelievable

I havent seen a better representation...

[bluestateboomer]

2. Excellent Analysis, but

It seems that both of the worldviews explored in this piece conveniently ignore the billions of people who populate the world. The world they so blithely feel they have the right to control. Unless some attention is paid to the needs and aspirations of the vast majorities of humans who inhabit the planet, these elites will someday see their world crash around them. According to this article, it would seem the "globalists" have a slightly better handle on these problems than the "hegemonists", but I don't think the world will just sit around while these two factions figure out who will dominate. Popular revolutions have happened before and they will happen again.

[Dover]

3. Globalists vs. Hegemonists

I think the globalist view has proven to be the most comprehensive and accurate....but agree that these two limited views are not nearly comprehensive or inclusive enough. The U.S. has to come to grips with what "power" really is, and how to use it...particularly if we are to become global citizens. It really comes down to questions of how to be in relationship with the world.


This globalist approach is also evident at the Army's War College
where they defined a strategic community of “stakeholders” that not only
includes the E.U. and many third world partners but also potential rivals
such as China, Russia and India. For military globalists security goes
beyond the war machine to a broader application of power. As one paper
argues, “The political and socio-cultural elements would help create
conditions for long-term peace and stability by strengthening democratic
institutions worldwide, by advancing human rights, and by responding to
humanitarian crisis.” (Wass de Czege, 2001, 14)

Under this policy unilateralism is a dangerous self-isolating strategy.
Writing for the NDU Kugler states that “any attempt by the United States
to act unilaterally would both overstretch its resources and brand it an
unwelcome hegemonic superpower.” (Kugler, 2000a, 23) Another study at
the Army’s War College warns that “Third World perceptions that the
United States wants to retain its hegemony by enforcing the status quo at
all costs (will encourage) much cynicism about American ideals at home
and abroad.” (Crane, 2002, 24) Military strategists at both these institutes
argued the strongest guarantee for world stability is multilateral civic and
military engagement. As Kugler explains, “the best hope for the future is a
global partnership between (the E.U. and U.S.) acting as leaders of the
democratic community.” (Kugler, 2000c, 19)

This globalist strategy was strongly promoted during the Clinton
years but never fully supported within the military. Nevertheless
hegemonists lacked a strategic rival enemy to focus their thinking and
goals. While globalists put forward a dynamic and proactive engagement
policy set inside a new grand strategy for global capitalist penetration and
stability, hegemonists opposed nation building as going beyond the
traditional military role and involved with non-essential global interests. As
one military strategist argued, the “armed forces (should) focus
exclusively on indisputable military duties” and “not diffuse our energies
away from our fundamental responsibilities for war fighting.” (Dunlap,
1996, 6) In more blunt terms Samuel Huntington wrote, “A military force
is fundamentally antihumanitarian: its purpose is to kill people in the most
efficient way possible.” (Huntington, 1993a, 43)

12
Maintaining this correct use of the military was central to the
arguement put forward by geopolitical realists like Secretary of State Colin
Powell and National Security Advisor Dr. Condolezza Rice. As Rice
explained before 9-11; “The president must remember that the military is a
special instrument. It is lethal and it is meant to be.
It is not a civilian
police force. It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not
designed to build a civilian society.” (Harding, 2003)

Well, that explains why Powell chose to position himself in Bush's corner...


This opposition to globalism backed the hegemonists into a
cautious defensive position that called for less foreign intervention limited
only to regions of vital interests. This dilemma was evident in the
presidential debates between George W. Bush and Al Gore. As Bush
stated: “I think we've got to be careful when we commit our troops. The
vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He
believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our
troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and
win wars.” (Desch, 2001, 5)

The hegemonist aversion to nation building can still be seen in their
failure to sufficiently support the new government in Afghanistan and the
many problems of occupation in Iraq. The Bush administration was
obviously unprepared and illequiped for the post war situiations. Just how
unprepared the military was for nation building is explained by Adam
Siegel, senior analyst at Northrop Grumman, “The war fighting mission
does not require analysis of governmental corruption, police brutality,
organized crime...international development funding (and) what is
happening in the local economy.” But under globalist leadership such
questions were affecting military operations. As Siegel continues, “What
will be the population's voting patterns? Where will refugees try to rebuild
houses? Will the local schools open on time...These are real examples that
this author has seen Bridgade commanders ask their intelligence officers in
Haiti and Bosnia.” (Siegel, 2001, 8)

Avoiding such situations and limiting
armed interventions to warfare was a key principal for the hegemoinsts.
These policy positions dominated MIC debates until the terrorist
attacks on 9/11 provided a new worldwide threat that let hegemonists out
of their anti-globalist box and created the long sought post Cold War
enemy. This made hegemonist’s strategy operational, with the best13
articulated position provided by the neoconservatives and their vision of
an aggressive U.S. empire. They quickly moved to assert their leadership
and a new unilaterialist direction. Richard Perle clearly articulates their
approach, “An alliance today is really not essential…the price you end-up
paying for an alliance is collective decision making…We’re not going to
let the discussions…the manner in which we do it (and) the targets we
select to be decided by a show of hands from countries whose interests
cannot be identical to our own.” (Perle, 2001)

--------

[GettysbergII]

4. David Korten: Alternative to Plantation vs Plantation Lite

In the late 1970s, Dr. David C. Korten left U.S. academia and moved to Southeast Asia, where he lived for nearly fifteen years, serving first as a Ford Foundation project specialist, and later as Asia regional advisor on development management to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). His work there won him international recognition for his contributions to pioneering the development of powerful strategies for transforming public bureaucracies into responsive support systems dedicated to strengthening community control and management of land, water, and forestry resources.

Disillusioned by the evident inability of USAID and other large official aid donors to apply the approaches that had been proven effective by the nongovernmental Ford Foundation, Korten broke with the official aid system. His last five years in Asia were devoted to working with leaders of Asian nongovernmental organizations on identifying the root causes of development failure in the region and building the capacity of civil society organizations to function as strategic catalysts of national- and global-level change.

I highly recommend his book The Post Corporate World but in it's lieu here's an article he wrote shortly after the last election.

http://www.pcdf.org/2004/Green%20Festival.htm

Economic Democracy Agenda

The proper goal of an economic democracy agenda is to replace the global suicide economy ruled by rapacious and unaccountable global corporations with a planetary system of local living economies comprised of human-scale enterprises rooted in the communities they serve and locally owned by the people whose wellbeing depends on them. The following are key elements of such an agenda.

1. Local Preference: The rules of commerce properly favor local enterprises and products.
2. Economic Democracy: Give a high priority to home ownership and an equitable ownership stake for every person in the productive assets on which their livelihood depends.
3. Healthy Communities: We properly measure economic performance by indicators of social and environmental health.
4. Fair Share: Graduated taxes for corporations and individuals. Those whom society most benefits benefit properly pay the greatest share of taxes for its maintenance. A fair tax system is a graduate tax system by which the wealthiest corporations and individuals contribute a growing share of their income to support the well-being of the whole.
5. Fair Markets: Fair markets are competitive markets. This requires strong anti-trust to break up monopolies and give clear preference for human-scale, locally–owned enterprises.
6. Fair Trade: Market rules properly assure that trade among nations and communities is fair and balanced and encourage local self-reliance in meeting basic needs.
7. Fair Voice: Market rules should be established by people, not corporations. At a minimum corporations should pay for their lobbying expenses from after-tax income just as individuals do.
8. Responsible Enterprise: Corporations and their owners are properly required to internalize the full costs of their operations and to bear the same liability as any other business for harms caused.

Political Democracy Agenda

Our present winner-take-all political system focuses attention on a single-minded competition for power that centers on the character assassination of opponents, attracts the unprincipled, and drives out problem-solving. Our goal is a political system that invigorates the political discourse by bringing a wide range of voices to the table, focuses on solving problems, and gives a meaningful voice to every person. Our reform agenda properly includes the following key elements

1. Voter Rights: Guaranteed right to vote for all citizens.
2. Clean Elections: Public financing of elections.
3. Fair Access: Require broadcast media outlets using the public airwaves to provide free airtime for ballot-qualified candidates.
4. Open Debates: Open political debates to a wider range of qualified candidates under nonpartisan administration.
5. Equal Representation: Introduce proportional representation to produce legislative bodies more representative of the range of political opinion and interests.
6. Voter Choice: Introduce instant runoff voting to open the election process to multiple parties without the spoiler effect.
7. Equal Voice: Abolish the Electoral College and introduce direct election of the president and vice president to give equal weight to every vote.
8. Electoral Integrity: Replace the system of partisan Secretaries of State with a system of nonpartisan election administration and implement a legally enforced requirement that election software be open source, automated vote counting equipment be regularly audited, and vote counts be subject to manual verification.
9. Human Rights: Are for people, not corporations. It is time to eliminate the legal distortion that corporations have the same rights as natural persons.



Democracy seemed an audacious idea in 1776. This is 2004. It is no longer an audacious idea. It is time to make it a reality.

Polling data tell us that most Americans want peace, fairness, a healthy environment, opportunity, freedom, democracy, and security for all — a world centered on people, not profits; on spiritual, not financial, values; and on international cooperation, not domination. These are not distinctively liberal or conservative values; they are the universally shared values on which the United States was founded. It is time to focus on our shared values and our common dream.

[teryang]

5. This is a dupe

posted earlier:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1815573

[Dover]

6. Not a dupe when posted in different forums. However, please feel free

to repost your response to the other thread here as well.

[teryang]

8. I stand corrected

I don't need to repost my critique.

[applegrove]

7. Excellent Post. Thank you. n/t