In his end of term speech Speaking 60 years ago, on January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned his country of the risk the defense industry already posed to American democracy. The Second World War, then the Cold War, had overwhelmed this sector.
“In the assemblies of the government, we must therefore beware of any unjustified influence, whether or not it has been solicited, exercised by the military-industrial complex, then said the commander-in-chief, himself a five-star general. The risk of a disastrous rise in illegitimate power exists and will persist. We must never allow the weight of this combination to endanger our freedoms and democratic processes. “
To say that the black prophecy of cassandres in uniform has come true is an understatement: the annual US military budget is close to 700 billion, or about 35% of the world total. The United States remains the world’s leading arms exporters, thanks to companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Rayhteon Technologies – in fact, thanks to thousands of companies, small, large and gigantic.
The chain conflicts unleashed after the attacks of September 11, 2001 caused all indicators to panic. According to the latest rational estimates released earlier this month by le projet Costs of War, the country has dedicated 8 trillion of its dollars to campaigns in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
The “war on terrorism” has justified practices derogating from certain fundamental rights. An exceptional law, the Patriot Act, allowed secret detentions, created the statutes of combatants (known as enemies or illegal) flouting thehabeas corpus. The prison outside the American borders (and therefore outside the Constitution) of Guantánamo has become the emblematic theater of this extraordinary freedom-killing war. Washington and its close allies, including Canada, have also secretly instituted global surveillance of entire populations, as revealed whistleblower Edward Snowden.
“The term ‘military-industrial complex’ is more apt than ever,” says Heidi Peltier, director of the Costs of War project and professor in the Department of Political Science at the Pardee School of Global Studies at Boston University. “More and more observers are now extending the concept to refer to the congressional military-industrial complex. “
This additional reference to elected officials is based on the reality of the “revolving doors” established between the two chambers of the legislative branch and the military industries. In this profitable back and forth movement, politicians become directors of military companies and vice versa.
A striking example: before being the hotshot in Afghanistan and then in Iraq of President Bush Jr., Vice-President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense to Bush Sr., was president of the Halliburton conglomerate, which has received tens of billions for military contracts since the turn of the century. In addition, many elected officials (representatives as well as senators) own shares in companies in the military sector.
Incomplete accounts
Mme Peltier was interviewed on the eve of the unveiling of the latest mind-boggling accounts of the 10 trillion Canadian dollars and about 900,000 deaths. The Costs of War Project was launched in 2010, with the approach of the tenth anniversary of the terrorist attacks that served as a the spy is clear to the United States and its NATO allies.
“The correct data was missing or seemed to be incomplete,” explains the director. When the Defense Department released figures on military budgets or conflict-related spending, or casualties, these always seemed underestimated. Categories were missing. The main aim of the project has therefore been and remains to provide full accounts of the costs of wars after September 11. We have examined the subject from several angles from a multidisciplinary perspective. “
Likewise, the approach of the twentieth anniversary, combined with the end of the occupation of Afghanistan, has stimulated the production of new studies. “With our studies, we hope to inform policy makers for their future politico-strategic decision-making,” says Director Peltier. Unfortunately, we keep repeating the same mistakes. Each time, we are promised a short, inexpensive military intervention [cheap], without much loss of life. Every time, the opposite happens, with the exception of the first Gulf War. Each time, the intervention proves to be long, expensive and causes the loss of many lives. “
Mme Peltier herself has recently taken an interest in to companies that have signed contracts with the army to provide equipment or personnel. She speaks of a ” camo economy », Thus using the diminutive of soldiers to designate the camouflage from which the new profiteers of the war benefit. “This economy hides a lot of the real financial and human costs of conflicts,” she sums up. The use of mercenaries is a good illustration of this problem. The use of private armies makes it possible to reduce the announced number of soldiers of the regular army deployed on the fields of operation and the number of dead. “
In 2019 alone, the Pentagon spent US $ 370 million on services, equipment and “human resources” provided by ” contractors », That is to say more than half of the budget of the Department of Defense. It is also 164% more than for similar expenses incurred in 2001. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, it is estimated that 8,000 people are serving “ contractors Were killed compared to around 7,000 regular troops.
M’s investigationme Peltier, an economist by training, also debunks the belief that resorting to the private sector ultimately saves money. We know the old story. On the contrary, contracts are often given without the competition that would allow prices to drop. In 2008 and 2019 alone, the US Department of Defense spent $ 1.2 trillion in this way, effectively creating very profitable monopoly situations.
The professor does not speak moreover (or not only) of a privatization of the war (as in the formula of the socialization of the risks and the privatization of the profits), but squarely of its commercialization.
“The privatization model applies when services normally offered by the government are transferred to the private sector,” she explains. I don’t like that term here. What is happening does not really have to do with the usual reliance on the private sector with tax dollars being used to buy services at the lowest cost in the public interest. When common money is spent for security reasons by employing a company that does not face competitive market pressure, one has to speak of war marketing. “
Watch video
Reference-feedproxy.google.com