|
The military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex,〔e.g. 〕 comprises the policy and monetary relationships which exist between legislators, national armed forces, and the arms industry that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961,〔"The Military–Industrial Complex; The Farewell Address of Presidente Eisenhower" Basements publications 2006 ISBN 0976642395〕 though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.〔Several Authors "Global Transformations" Stanford University Press 1999, page 108 (view on google books )〕〔"SIPRI Year Book 2008; Armaments, Disarmaments and International Security" Oxford University Press 2008 ISBN 9780199548958 Pages 255–56 (view on google books )〕 In 2011, the United States spent more on its military than the next 13 nations combined. The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as corporations and institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, the Congress and executive branch. A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book ''Fascism and Big Business'', about the fascist government support to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."〔Pursell, C. (1972). The military–industrial complex. Harper & Row Publishers, New York, New York.〕 An exhibit of the trend was made in Franz Leopold Neumann's book ''Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism'' in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state. ==Etymology== President of the United States (and five-star general during World War II) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961: The phrase was thought to have been "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts of Eisenhower's speech, a claim passed on only by oral history. Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military–industrial–congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials. James Ledbetter calls this a "stubborn misconception" not supported by any evidence; likewise a claim by Douglas Brinkley that it was originally "military–industrial–scientific complex".〔 Additionally, Henry Giroux claims that it was originally "military–industrial–academic complex". The actual authors of the speech were Eisenhower's speechwriters Ralph E. Williams and Malcolm Moos.〔Griffin, Charles "New Light on Eisenhower's Farewell Address," in Presidential Studies Quarterly 22 (Summer 1992): 469–479〕 Attempts to conceptualize something similar to a modern "military–industrial complex" existed before Eisenhower's address. Ledbetter finds the precise term used in 1947 in close to its later meaning in an article in ''Foreign Affairs'' by Winfield W. Riefler.〔 In 1956, sociologist C. Wright Mills had claimed in his book ''The Power Elite'' that a class of military, business, and political leaders, driven by mutual interests, were the real leaders of the state, and were effectively beyond democratic control. Friedrich Hayek mentions in his 1944 book ''The Road to Serfdom'' the danger of a support of monopolistic organisation of industry from WWII political remnants: Vietnam War–era activists, such as Seymour Melman, referred frequently to the concept, and use continued throughout the Cold War: George F. Kennan wrote in his preface to Norman Cousins's 1987 book ''The Pathology of Power'', "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy." In the late 1990s James Kurth asserted, "By the mid-1980s,()the term had largely fallen out of public discussion." He went on to argue that "()hatever the power of arguments about the influence of the military–industrial complex on weapons procurement during the Cold War, they are much less relevant to the current era." Contemporary students and critics of American militarism continue to refer to and employ the term, however. For example, historian Chalmers Johnson uses words from the second, third, and fourth paragraphs quoted above from Eisenhower's address as an epigraph to Chapter Two ("The Roots of American Militarism") of a recent volume〔''The Sorrows of Empire: Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic''. New York: Metropolitan Books, 2004. p. 39〕 on this subject. P. W. Singer's book concerning private military companies illustrates contemporary ways in which industry, particularly an information-based one, still interacts with the U.S. Government and the Pentagon.〔''Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry''. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2003.〕 The expressions permanent war economy and war corporatism are related concepts that have also been used in association with this term. The term is also used to describe comparable collusion in other political entities such as the German Empire (prior to and through the first world war), Britain, France and (post-Soviet) Russia. Linguist and anarcho-socialist theorist Noam Chomsky has suggested that "military–industrial complex" is a misnomer because (as he considers it) the phenomenon in question "is not specifically military."〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=War Crimes and Imperial Fantasies, Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian )〕 He claims, "There is no military–industrial complex: it's just the industrial system operating under one or another pretext (defense was a pretext for a long time)."〔In ''On Power, Dissent, and Racism: a Series of Discussions with Noam Chomsky'', Baraka Productions, 2003.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Military–industrial complex」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|