The following is a comment by Owen Bell, a contributor to this blog. It is particularly apposite in view of the strident militarism of some election candidates:
“One of the reasons for the decline of the Roman Empire was perpetual warfare. They were constantly engaged in battle against the Germanic and Celtic tribes, to say nothing of the Visigoths. This cost of lot of money, which was felt through higher taxes and inflation (the coins became thinner.) Meanwhile, it also required a lot of able-bodied men- the sort of people you need in a dynamic workforce. Meanwhile, Rome was dominated by charismatic yet militaristic leaders who promised glory abroad but failed to reverse the decline at home. Eventually the Empire overstretched itself. With its defences wearing thin, rebellions became more frequent. This, combined with the chaotic state of domestic politics (witnessed the regularity of Emperors being assassinated), and a once great empire collapsed, plunging Europe into the Dark Ages.
America today faces a similar situation. It is overstretched abroad, with a decreasing number of allies. The domestic policy scene is chaotic (albeit not as violent as Imperial Rome), with charismatic leaders (Trump and Cruz) promising glory in battle. Meanwhile, establishment politicians like Rubio and Clinton say that America should increase its commitments to the rest of the world; both politicians strongly support the bombing, and we may even see the redeployment of American troops in the Middle East. In an age of austerity, this is unsustainable. We either put an end to perpetual warfare and reduce military spending in favour of investing in our own future, or America will surely be eclipsed, leaving room for more sinister powers to take the lead.
The danger that America faces today, that no major world power in history has faced before to the same extent, is the danger posed by the defence corporations and affiliates, in whose interest it is for perpetual warfare to continue. I have absolutely no doubt that the reason why defence corporations donate to political candidates is because they want something in return. They hope to get increased military spending, even if it’s on things like tanks that the Pentagon says are no longer needed. They then claim that whatever war is being fought is in the national interest, and that increased military spending is good because it creates jobs. There are two obvious responses to these highly untenable propositions: that America is not safer now than it was since the War on Terror began, despite the interventionists predicting otherwise, and that military spending is a highly inefficient way of creating jobs as much of the investment by definition goes abroad. Certainly in comparison to public works projects or even tax cuts, military spending is invariably wasteful.
Eisenhower warned us about the so-called military industrial complex- the complex web of relations between the military and the private companies and interest groups associated with it. To an extent, the military industrial complex is necessary in the modern era; we need governments to coordinate with defence contractors effectively to win wars quickly and with the fewest possible casualties. But these defence contractors must have no influence on deciding on whether to go to war, because they have a default interest in the outcome, even if it’s against the interests of the rest of the country.