The Triumph of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex

[undeterred]

To understand perverse military decision-making, follow the money
by Ben Cohen & Winslow Wheeler

In his farewell address in January 1961, Pres. Dwight Eisenhower famously cautioned the American public to “guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” Today it’s routine for critics of wasteful military spending to cite Eisenhower’s warning. Unfortunately, Eisenhower did not warn us that the military-industrial complex would become increasingly malignant as it morphed into less obvious forms. The “complex” is no longer just “military” and “industrial,” and it has extended far beyond just its congressional branch, which Eisenhower also intended to include. It’s now deeply embedded in the fiber of the American political system, academia, the civilian leadership of the Defense Department and—increasingly—the White House itself.

The military-industrial-complex was on display—but passed without wide notice—on Dec. 5 when Pres. Barack Obama announced, at the White House, his selection of Harvard professor Ashton Carter to replace the ineffectual and effortlessly discarded Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. Avuncular in public tone and appearance, Carter—a nuclear physicist with an avowed enthusiasm for medieval history—has already served in multiple high Department of Defense positions, deciding national security policy and later weapons acquisition. Consequently, Obama described Carter at the White House as “bringing a unique blend of strategic perspective and technical know-how.” Obama even joked that Carter is “one of the few people who actually understands how many of our defense systems work.

But look closer and you’ll see that Carter has a dark side. Beyond his early and enthusiastic support for starting and prolonging the 2003 war in Iraq and extending the U.S. combat presence in Afghanistan, he has spoken out in favor of initiating war against North Korea and Iran. Now that Obama is returning the U.S. military to Iraq and retaining up to 10,000 American troops in Afghanistan, the two men seem to be increasingly of one mind. “I pledge to you my most candid strategic advice,” Carter told Obama at the White House. Expanding the Iraq-Syria conflict and prolonging the war in Afghanistan may very well be what he has in mind.

His advocacy of more and longer wars is not the only troubling element of Carter’s track record. Between stints at the Pentagon, he has associated with defense-connected firms including MITRE, Goldman Sachs, Global Technology Partners and Textron. More darkly, he more recently associated with a firm called SBD Advisors, which has advertised itself as working in Washington’s shadows so that “only the inner circle knows that we were involved,” according to the company. The firm professes it has no defense-related clients, but its board includes former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Mike Mullen and former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair—a seeming contradiction. The Harvard credentials and degrees in physics from Yale and Oxford notwithstanding, Obama’s characterization of Carter as “one of the few people who actually understands how many of our defense systems work” does not rest comfortably with his record in the Pentagon.

Read more: https://medium.com/war-is-boring/the-triumph-of-the-military-industrial-congressional-complex-a27d6e5fb1a8

[TwilightGardener]

1. There is a very strange relationship with Ashton Carter and

the Obama administration that I've noticed: they brought him back into the Pentagon as a "transition" guy in 2009 and certainly could have had him for SecDef when Panetta the Ceremonial Hillary-Friendly Figurehead left, because the MIC loves him--but they cynically chose Hagel to use his GOP combat vet status to do unpopular things, and stuck with him even though his nomination and confirmation caused literal and bizarre hysteria in Congress and in defense circles. His confirmation process was used by his neocon enemies to take him down a few notches, which the White House didn't seem to mind. And then they publicly asked Carter to stay on as DepSecDef, but he was highly insubordinate and he and Hagel did not get along (Hagel didn't apparently didn't want the job-sharing arrangement that Carter and Panetta had) and Carter left abruptly right as the budget process (really, his most important job) was kicking into high gear, and there was no immediate replacement and an acting Deputy was installed.

About this time, the White House oddly started attacking Hagel, personally and anonymously, in the press, and it kept up steadily until he finally resigned and was replaced with...yup, Carter. The White House cover story is that Hagel wasn't "up to it" as a good spokesman or idea guy, and Carter will help Obama strategize the ISIS war, but that's bullshit, Carter isn't a military strategist, never served, and what public forays he did make into foreign policy and strategy were positively ridiculous (pre-emptive bombing of North Korea with two other hot wars going on, as the article points out). Hagel, by contrast, is pretty astute on foreign policy and strategy, but apparently the Obama administration treated him like a red-headed step child in every way.

You have to wonder if the Obama administration hired Hagel with little real intention of keeping him--and maybe Hagel wasn't really in on the game, or didn't care for being used that way. He seemed to be on probationary status the whole time, he wasn't in the "inner circle" (but interestingly Gen Dempsey was), and they clearly didn't want to hear from him. It was probably more of a "shut up and go away" job, like with Jon Huntsman--use and discard and the GOP will take it from there and disown him. Obama incidentally offered Hagel an ambassadorship early on, and Hagel said no. But regardless, the Deep State (Carter) is back running the Pentagon and is still running the CIA (Brennan), and the MIC and neocons are cheering, and Obama is perfectly fine with that as long as they leave him alone and he looks good politically.

[Scuba]

2. Weird, indeed. A follower of the "Bush Doctrine" as Obama's Sec of Defense?

I guess it's the consistent with Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, et al.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Nah, Obama doesn't care if they're neocons/Bushies--Robert Gates, anyone?

I honestly don't think he cares that much who is SecDef, as long as they go along with a few defense-related issues he really cares about. Although Gates proved to be a disloyal asshole, and Panetta was even worse. One issue I do take with this article (and Wheeler is frankly a little nutty, from what I've read of him) is that Hagel wasn't removed for being "ineffectual". Leon Panetta was a jolly paper-signer, and left the day-to-day stuff to Carter, and that was fine with Obama. Hagel was removed because the Obama administration didn't really care if he stayed or left, but probably with the condition that if one thing he said or did pissed them off, he was gone. My hunch is that he tried to do too much, rather than too little (didn't know his place in the grand scheme).

It's really extraordinary, that a sitting, very important cabinet officer suddenly has to resign and no one can really say why, or point to any scandals, mistakes or misdeeds or incompetence. And now this next guy is being very quietly installed, no opposition, no public vetting beyond everyone telling us what a wonderful genius he is and that he likes Motown music. He'll pass thru the Senate with 100-0 voting yes, and that will be that. The whole situation is extremely interesting, at least to me.

[KoKo]

4. From reading your two replies to the OP

what I wonder is what are the "few defense related issues" that Obama cares enough about that he feels Carter would implement if he is confirmed. Carter sounds like a war hawk and hardly someone we would want in the position of Sec. of Defense given the enormous problems we have ongoing in the ME and the ramping up of conflict with Russia over Ukraine.

Many thought that Hagel's leaving was unusual in that Obama holds onto his appointments (even when they are flawed) like glue stuck to his hand. Hopefully Hagel will write a book or leak to a reporter at some point...what went on. But, Carter seems to be ill suited for his job unless Obama plans to ratchet up military actions beyond what we could imagine at this point. Hope that's not the case but what else could it mean.

[TwilightGardener]

5. It's highly unusual: I've never seen a high-profile cabinet member leave

suddenly when there wasn't an obvious reason. If they wanted him out, they could have planted, with his cooperation, that he wanted to retire (like Panetta), only planned to stay two years, take advantage of opportunities in the private sector, the usual stuff to save face and reputation. But when everyone's first reaction to the resignation is "Huh? Why?" and the administration publicly attacks him, then there must be an interesting backstory we are not hearing. It's been two months, and still no Petraeus-type affairs, hookers, drunk driving arrests, major professional screw-ups, etc. being leaked. The military wasn't trying to oust him, the way they did to Rumsfeld. Instead the WH planted shit anonymously in the media that he was "too quiet", or "didn't have enough insightful comments in meetings", or "let General Dempsey take the spotlight too much", and so on. Minor style points. Since the White House obviously didn't care about him, they would have leaked anything bad if they had it (like Petraeus' CIA resignation). I'm certain they hoped he would publicly fuck up and give them an excuse that everyone would understand, but he didn't, so this is how it went down. I should add, the White House tried to get a two-fer in attempting to scapegoat Hagel for various things like ISIS and Gitmo and Ebola, but not even Hagel's detractors bought it, so they gave up on that lately.

As far as Carter, he'll do what Obama wants politically/budget-wise, which is what he HAD been doing at the Pentagon for all but the last 12 months, while also keeping the MIC/Neocons happy. The Pentagon is back to running itself, in other words. For the last year or so, it didn't, but that's been corrected, and Obama will be applauded for it.

[KoKo]

6. Yes...that's probably the likely scenario.

The Pentagon is back to running itself, in other words. For the last year or so, it didn't, but that's been corrected, and Obama will be applauded for it.

but, very worrisome to those of us who wished for a different direction.