The Age of Disruption: Impact on the Military Industrial Complex

Watching conservatives oppose military intervention in Syria has been entertaining to say the least.  We all know that if the occupants of the White Hosue were a Republican, they’d be cheerleading for the most ruinous attack possible, telling us that Assad is the moral equal of Pol Pot, Hitler, Mussolini and Jeffrey Dahmer all rolled into one.  Not so long ago, however, most of Washington DC would have joined in supporting an attack.  A few years ago, an attack on Syria would have been a foregone conclusion, there would have been sporadic opposition but it would have happened, and at least inside the “establishment” would have been regarded as necessary and possibly even good.  A great many Democrats supported action against Iraq in 2002 and 2003 (despite their doubts of its success) because the necessity of military action was accepted, common wisdom even if their instincts told them it was a disaster waiting to happen.

The disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan were/are simply to big to be ignored, even by hawkish political insiders.  When someone as reliably dim and possessed of the conventional wisdom as George Will doesn’t favor a military strike, you know something has shifted.

The signs have been around for a while.  Kos (although talking about the fall of neocons) observed today:

We first saw it with the sequester—where the $800 billion in defense cuts was supposed to prod the GOP to negotiate in good faith for a grand bargain. Instead, the bulk of the GOP nodded in approval and left the military-industrial complex slack-jawed, abandoned despite the mounds of campaign cash they shipped into GOP coffers.

There’s money to be made in bombing Syria and potential profits focus the attention of military contracters.

More deeply than simple profits, the decades long codependent relationship between America’s politicians, our military and the vast network of military contractors who make absurd profits and who in turn make sure political campaigns are well funded has created a mindset that says the US must be the world’s policeman, that we must enforce the laws of the world and we must act and that action must be military to enforce pax-Americana.  It tells us the US creates peace by making war.  You can see it in the rise of the Imperial Presidency (American Caesars), in gradual but persistent militarization of American culture.  The national security state, the near constant state of wartime mentality that dominated the Cold War era, that was replaced with the War On Terror (trademark) that at least in theory provided us with an equally grave clash of civilizations and worldviews.

Andrew Bacevich:

The real issue — Americans should hope that the forthcoming congressional debate makes this explicit — concerns the advisability of continuing to rely on military might as the preferred means of advancing U.S. interests in this part of the world.

It seems unlikely the current Congress is even capable of that debate:

Will members of the Senate and the House grasp the opportunity to undertake an urgently needed reassessment of America’s War for the Greater Middle East?  Or wriggling and squirming, will they inelegantly sidestep the issue, opting for short-term expediency in place of serious governance?  In an age where the numbing blather of McCain, McConnell, and Reid have replaced the oratory of Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, merely to pose the question is to answer it.

What’s happened, in its simplest form, is that the age of disruption has hit the military industrial complex and they never saw it coming.

The mere idea that politicians voting on matters of war and peace — life and death — could be influenced by contributions is the most perverted money in politics nightmare. You can be sure that senators voting ‘yes’ on Syria emphatically deny a quid pro quo with military industrial donors, saying that defense lobbyists give them money because they happen to agree on military matters, and because everyone on the Foreign Relations Committee gets more money from those industries. That’s just how the status quo is.

But the status quo is the problem. Politicians should not be allowed to receive money from interests they regulate. Period. As soon as Foreign Relations Committee members take money from the very companies that stand to make millions from military action, we the people can no longer be unequivocally sure that they are making decisions purely on the merits of what’s best for our nation.

In the age of disruption, feedback goes awry – we are living with the results of delayed or broken feedback in which people who make decisions are insulated from even seeing the impact of their choices.  Wall Street’s misfeasance leading up the economic crach of 2008 should have resulted in massive structural refoms; instead, there were minor reforms and within next to no time, Wall Street returned to its previous behaviors with all its incentives intact.  The financial used every ounce of its influence and connections to protect itself from consequences.  It succeded because leadership is disrupted as well.  To quote Otto Scharmer, we live in an age in which there is “A disconnect between institutional leadership and people . . . a leadership void that shows up in the widely shared sense that we are collectively creating results that nobody wants.”

The metaphor of substance addiction springs to mind, operating at a massive societal level rather than a personal level.  Disruptive outcomes unravel around us.  It sounds paradoxical, but by simply asking Congress to decide, the President disrupted but also embodied a disrupted system.  The military industrial complex has long relied on imperial presidents to do their bidding.  This Congress, utterly incapable of acting even to further the aims of its benefactors, revealed a massive institutional disruption – the connection between the well-healed and well connected who want a war in Syria and the politicians who serve them couldn’t coordinate a simple bombing campaign.

The military industrial complex just experienced its first real setback in a very long time.  I have no doubt at some point in the not so distant they’ll get their pricey bombing campaign.  I also have no doubt that it will deepen the sense of disconnect between the governed and the people.  We will be getting an outcome (almost) no one really wants.

Otto Scharmer argues that “The eight disconnects that we listed above represent a decoupling of two worlds: a decoupling of the structure of societal reality from the structure of economic thought . . .”

To put it differently, policy and governance right now represent a decoupling of the structure of societal reality from the practice of governance and the structure of political thought.  Republicans are prepared to destroy the economy over the debt ceiling, the President believes he can make bargains with them, Democrats in Congress are divided and at least some regularly side with Republicans.  They’ve allied themselves in a desparate gamble to save the well connected few while ignoring the hardships of the many.  The age of disruption delivered another wake up call, this time to the most politically connected of the politically connected.  Let’s see if anyone in the establishment paid attention.

, ,

  1. #1 by Nathan Erkkila on September 14, 2013 - 5:32 am

    That begs the question. Why would a Republican enter Syria? Bush didn’t do a thing in Darfur. Why would he do something in Syria?

    • #2 by Glenden Brown on September 14, 2013 - 9:10 am

      I’m not sure a Republican would necessarily choose to intervene in Syria. OTOH, Republican presidents intervened in Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras and Panama and of course repeatedly in the Persian Gulf leading up to the first Gulf War. The list of various military actions ordered by Presidents Reagan and Bush from Jan 1981 to Jan 1993 is lengthy.

      That said, Democrats see US imperial power very differently than Republicans. Clinton’s military actions in the Balkans are a good example of that. Either way, however, it’s all good for the military industrial complex – they make a profit. First they build the weapons, then sell the weapons, then watch as it gets blown up, then they get paid to rebuild it. It’s a good deal all around for them.

      • #3 by Nathan Erkkila on September 14, 2013 - 7:20 pm

        Then why did Bush ignore Darfur or the Congo or Sri Lanka? War is done for profit. Ever wonder why we jumped into Libya immediately, but not Syria? oil.

  2. #4 by Richard Warnick on September 14, 2013 - 10:09 am

    Maybe Congress and the President can be forced to heed the wisdom of Nancy Pelosi’s five-year-old grandson. Nobody has attacked the USA this time, therefore we don’t go to war.

  3. #5 by cav on September 14, 2013 - 4:28 pm

    The ‘upcoming shitstorm’ they told us about back in august which was supposedly why they closed/pulled out of most if not all Mideast embassies, then quietly moth-balled the whole costly frightening mess probably wasn’t about what the fuckers said it was about.

    Who could imagine.

  4. #6 by Nathan Erkkila on September 15, 2013 - 12:45 am

    @ brewski

    If you say so

  5. #7 by Larry Bergan on September 15, 2013 - 2:21 pm

    Glenden says:

    When someone as reliably dim and possessed of the conventional wisdom as George Will doesn’t favor a military strike, you know something has shifted.

    Couldn’t have said it better. This country really NEEDS a term limit on pundits. There should be a law addressing that and attached to it should be a provision banning war profiteering AND attaching unrelated provisions to all future bills.

  6. #8 by cav on September 15, 2013 - 10:04 pm

    The republican presidential interventions in Lebanon, Grenada, Honduras and Panama were really about washing the Failure that was Vietnam from our collective pallets. If ever a New Pearl Harbor was going to abide, it would only happen after our population had again been suitably softened to the pleasures of war. I mean Granada! Panama! Pass the bananas.

  7. #9 by cav on September 16, 2013 - 9:38 am

    Now, with Syria, and Summers Fed nomination down the tube, maybe it’s time to give some thought to what will likely fill the remaining lame duck agenda.

    I think it’s two big horrors – fast tracking of the two big NAFTA on steroid not-trade deals – and/or getting even more serious about earned benefits destruction.

    The admin was perfectly willing to waste money on Syria but will not want to spend anything on the olds or youngs.

  8. #10 by Richard Warnick on September 17, 2013 - 12:57 pm

    I think we’ve reviewed this issue thoroughly. The thing to do is get our health care costs in line with other developed countries – where patients get similar outcomes at half the U.S. price.

  9. #11 by cav on September 17, 2013 - 4:19 pm

    It would also be helpful to install a financial speculation tax; create a few million good paying jobs, increase the wage for all of the rest below a certain level;;adjust the MIC spending; tailor foreign spending as though it were something other than a compilation of CIA Black Ops., then give brewski that well deserved bonus for holding his end up so well.

    Really, there’s plenty of money – only it oughtn’t be filtered through the Banksters pockets quite the way it is.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: