Come you masters of war
You that build all the guns
You that build the death planes
You that build the big bombs
You that hide behind walls
You that hide behind desks
I just want you to know
I can see through your masks

Somemonths before Bob Dylan wrote these lines about the US weapons industryin the song Masters of War, outgoing President Dwight Eisenhower coinedthe term ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ in his 1961 farewell address. Hecautioned against its “total influence... economic, political, evenspiritual...felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of thefederal government”. As a former general and war hero himself,Eisenhower recognized the imperative need for military muscle poweredby domestic industry. Yet, he warned, “We must not fail to comprehendits grave implications....In the councils of government, we must guardagainst the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought orunsought, by the military-industrial complex.”

Halfa century later, the influence of the now notorious ‘mil-ind complex’remains not just undiminished, but has expanded enormously. SuccessiveAmerican presidents, including professed pacifists such as Jimmy Carterwho took office after the Vietnam War promising to curb arms trade,have been unable to staunch its rampant growth. Contrary to popularperception that this monster grows mostly during Republicanadministrations, even Democratic dispensations have bowed before itsclout. Galloping to vulgar proportions during the Reagan years, whenthe so-called toilet seat scandal (in which the Pentagon paid $600 foreach toilet seat and $3,000 for a coffee pot in examples of procurementsystem run amok) erupted, it did not end even after the Cold War. TheClinton administration continued to feed the beast. And then there was9/11... and Iraq...and Afghanistan...and Pakistan. Today, the beast iscasting its shadow on India.

‘Pentagonized Society’

Theidea that there are ‘masters of war’ whose bottomline is benefited byconflict is not really new. Decades ago, in an essay titled ‘ElPentagonismo, Sustituto del Imperialismo’ (Pentagonism, Substitute ofImperialism), Dominican writer-politician Juan Bosch called the US a“Pentagonized society” where international policy is not controlled bythe civil government, but by “Pentagonism” that needs frequent warsanywhere so it can generate wealth by creating industries, and jobs bybagging arms contracts. In his 2003 novel Scarecrow (also made into amovie), Australian writer Matthew Reilly depicts a group of leaders ofa worldwide military-industrial complex, who engineer wars for profits.In 2005, Nicholas Cage played lead role in Lord of War, a movieendorsed by Amnesty International that highlighted arms trafficking bythe ‘mil-ind complex’.

Thetruth may not be as cynical or sinister, but the fact is wars, or atleast a constant state of tension and potential conflict, is good forthe arms industry and its bottomline. At a time of tremendous economicconvulsions and stagnation in the US throughout the decade after 9/11,major players of the so-called mil-ind complex — among the top five,Lockheed Martin, Northrup Grumman, Raytheon, Boeing, and GeneralDynamics — continued to mint money hand over fist, often sellingweapons and technology to antagonists: Israel and its Arab/Gulfopponents, Greece and Turkey, China and Japan/Taiwan/South Korea.Pakistan, which for decades has been a loyal client of the US armsindustry, and India, a more recent convert, may well be the latestsuckers in this double-edged game.

Forall the talk of making the world a better place that fetched the USpresident a Nobel Prize, things don’t look like changing much in theObama administration. Perhaps a little minor tinkering in the script tohumour the self-righteous, but otherwise it is business as usual forthe mil-ind folks. If anything, with increasingly sophisticatedweaponry and warfare tactics (think drones, robots, ballistic missiledefence etc), unending conflict, and newly instigated match-ups (Chinavs India, Japan, South Korea etc) the mil-ind monster is set to expandits footprint even more.

Growth amidst slump

Tobegin with, despite the natter about the decline, if not demise, of theUS, American military muscle remains undiminished. Out of a totalprojected world military spending of $1.4 trillion in 2010, Washingtonis expected to account for half — nearly $700 billion. That’s more thanthe rest of the world combined. Most of this is spent and consumedinternally as the mil-ind giants, in cahoots with lawmakers, milk thesystem in a Faustian spirit to generate economic activity and jobs —spurred on by wars abroad.

Accordingto one estimate, between May 1999 and May 2009, employment in the USprivate sector only rose by 1.1%, by far the lowest 10-year increase inthe post-Depression period. Take away the health sector and it wasnegative. The manufacturing sector shrank by nearly 20%. No prizes forguessing where the growth came from. Military production has more thandoubled from the year 2000 and added tens of thousands of jobs.

Althoughexports constitute only around 10% of the US mil-ind complex’srevenues, selling overseas is increasingly coming into play to keep theassembly lines — especially obsolete ones — humming. Nowhere is thismore evident than at the Lockheed Martin’s F-16 plant in Fort Worth,Texas, which has lived on meagre orders from Pakistan and Taiwan in thepast few years after even the US Air Force moved on to newer toys.According to a US Congressional Research Service report on‘Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations’, in 2006,Washington agreed to sell $10.3 billion in weapons to the developingworld, or 35.8% of these deals worldwide. Russia was second with $8.1billion, or 28.1%, and Britain was third with $3.1 billion, or 10.8%.The buyers? Pakistan topped with $5.1 billion in agreements, followedby India with $3.5 billion, and Saudi Arabia with $3.2 billion.

Sincethen, the script has changed slightly. Broke beyond salvation and eyedwith suspicion, Pakistani purchases are tailing off even though itstill hankers after crumbs thrown by Washington and manages to rustleup enough borrowed money to cater to its military’s fetish forexpensive new weaponry (citing India as a threat). But the big newmarket is India.

Inthe past few years, US companies and their rivals in Europe have beensmacking their lips at the prospect of multi-billion sales to NewDelhi. Although India’s defence expenditure, at only around 2% of itsGDP, is still among the lowest in the world on a per capita basis, itsgrowing economy has expanded its military budget to $30 billion plusannually. A military that has been run to the ground with obsoleteequipment and technology is also seeking newer hardware to keep up withthe times and face challenges of the 21st century.

So,2010 may well be the watershed year in which India is coaxed to leavebehind a tattered Pakistan (whose only weapons may well be irregularwarfare in the form of terrorism or the ultimate nuclear threat) andcajoled into a match-up with China, whose military budget is more thanthree times India’s at $100 billion plus. In course of the year, NewDelhi will receive not only US President Barack Obama, but a host ofEuropean leaders from Germany, France, Italy and UK, all plying theirmilitary wares (among other things). At the root of this sales pitch:fears expressed in some Indian quarters about China’s policy ofencirclement and Beijing’s imminent domination of the Indian Ocean andbeyond.

Thatline of thinking pretty much underscores most of India’s recent andupcoming military acquisitions, including the order for 126 multi-rolecombat aircraft that will be the single largest deal in Indian history.“What India currently has in terms of planes is sufficient to take careof Pakistan,” says Mohan Guruswamy, director of the Centre for PolicyAlternatives, who was in the US last week to promote his book Chasingthe Dragon: Will India catch up with China? “It’s China that India isnow worrying about.” Indeed, much of US arms sales are now premised ona match-up with China, with Pakistan, looking increasingly fragile, amere sideshow.

India vs China again

Whilesome analysts credit hawks in the Bush administration with planting“China-is-a-threat-to-India” in New Delhi’s mind — thereby compellingNew Delhi to step up its defence acquisition and force level to deterBeijing — the truth is a little more layered. It was New Delhi whichcited China (and by implication, its nuclear transfers to Pakistan) asthe prime reason for its 1998 nuclear tests. It was only after the Bushadministration’s strategic embrace of India, culminating in the nucleardeal, that China became overtly testy and cranked up its borderconfrontation with India which was largely on the backburner till then.While India saw China surrounding it with a string of pearls strategy,Beijing viewed New Delhi’s dalliance with US and its allies Japan,South Korea, Vietnam etc, equally suspiciously.

Allthis suits the great American mil-ind complex perfectly in Republicanyears or Democratic, although the system is better lubricated whenconservatives and Cold War relics are in power in the White House andon the Hill. At no time was its clout better displayed than during theBush years, when a coalition of conservative think-tanks (such as theCenter for Security Policy), mil-ind backed lawmakers, hardlineadministration officials and the arms merchants joined hands to pushprojects like missile defence systems and new fighter jets. By onecount, there were 22 alumni of the CSP serving in the Bushadministration.

Thestory goes that at one CSP dinner, then defence secretary DonaldRumsfeld joked that “I was thinking of calling a staff meeting, but Ithink I’ll wait until tomorrow.” Of the 32 former executives,consultants or major shareholders of weapons manufacturers who wereappointed to important positions in the Bush administration, eight hadties to Lockheed Martin, according to a report in the Nation journal.Key company alumni included undersecretary of the air force PeterTeets, who had authority over the acquisition of military spacesystems, and Everet Beckner, who was in charge of nuclear weaponsactivities at the Department of Energy’s National Nuclear SecurityAdministration. “In short, the nuclear weapons industry doesn’t need tolobby the Bush Administration — to a significant degree, they are theBush Administration,” said William Hartung, author of How Much Are YouMaking on the War Daddy? — A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteeringin the Bush Administration, who wrote the Nation article.

It’snot just Cold War warriors and policy wonks who bat for the arms lobby;many lawmakers do too, compelled by the need to keep jobs in theirconstituencies and states. When India announced its intention to buy126 multi-role combat aircraft in a deal that could be worth at least$10 billion to begin with, Missouri’s Republican senator Kit Bondheaded off to New Delhi in no time. The prime reason: Boeingmanufactures the F-18 Super Hornet jets in St Louis, Missouri, wherebagging the 126-plane India order could mean continued employment for25,000 people, not to speak of profits for Boeing.

Bondmet with the Prime Minister, the defence minister, the nationalsecurity advisor and the external affairs minister, among others,openly lobbying for the F-18 Super Hornet. “Pound for pound and dollarfor dollar, the F-15 and F/A-18 are the finest tactical fighters forour nation’s and our allies’ defence,” he said at one point. “The US islooking to India as more than just a marketplace for our defenceproducts, but as a technology, aerospace and strategic partner for ourfuture endeavours.” That deal is still up in the air (the Russians,Swedes, French and British are also in the race) as New Delhi puts thebidders through user trials etc, but don’t expect the Americans to sitback.

Not Just Profit

Americanofficials though insist that there is more to American military salesto India than mere mercenary motive of its mil-ind complex. A senioradministration official who reviewed US-India military ties with thiscorrespondent recently pointed out that many Washington sales werepolicy driven, including helping India during the Kargil War. In fact,Boeing got into the act with its F-18 pitch only after Condoleezza Ricealerted the company to Washington’s decision to offer an even betterdeal to India after it decided to agree to Pakistan’s pleas for F-16s.While that example also goes to illustrate how US sells weapons to twoantagonistic sides, US officials say the role of the arms lobby, atleast insofar as India goes, is vastly overstated.

Lastmonth, this ‘dual-face’ policy came under scrutiny again when USdefence secretary Robert Gates was asked in Pakistan why the US wasre-arming both parties. Gates ducked the question but US officialslater said if the US did not sell the weapons the two countries couldget them elsewhere. In Gates-speak: “I think we have to make thesedecisions judiciously. But we also do not simply want to turn overthese military relationships to other countries who don’t have as manyscruples as we do in terms of making these decisions.”

Inother words, Uncle Sam knows best.Indian experts are divided though onwhether the US arms sales to India is merely a mercenary act driven bythe mil-ind complex or a strategic investment engineered by Washington.“US military sales to India are miniscule in the overall context, soprofit is hardly the motive,” says Manohar Thyagaraj, a defenceconsultant who founded Paragon International to promote US-India trade.He estimates that nearly 90% of US defence production is internallyconsumed. Still, he concedes, as India’s defence budget inches up to 3%of a growing GDP (from its current 2%), even American firms arestarting to look up India. The 126-jet deal, he says, is not worth just$10-12 billion initial capital cost, but could also mean an additional$35 billion revenue over the lifecycle of the plane. Small wonder thedeal has Kit Bond so excited and involved.

This article by Chidanand Rajghatta was published on 7 February 2010 in the Sunday Times of India. Please click HERE