Wars for Profit, Not Freedom
By Rouge One, September 14, 2024
Smedley Butler was a U.S. Marine Corps Major General who is notable for his outspoken criticism of military intervention and corporate influence on government. He served in the Marine Corps from 1898 to 1931 and earned two Medals of Honor for his bravery in combat. After retiring, Butler wrote a book called War is a Racket. Full text is available at this link
Introduction
Smedley Butler’s War Is a Racket, written in 1935, is more relevant today than ever. In a world dominated by defense contractors, private military companies, and oil interests, Butler’s piercing critique of war profiteering remains shockingly accurate. His core thesis? War is not fought for democracy or freedom but for profit. As we examine conflicts from the past 20 years, from the Iraq War to the Afghanistan debacle and U.S. global arms sales, it becomes clear: war is still very much a racket, and the corporations are still cashing in while soldiers pay the price. Today, things are probably even more insidious. In 1961, two and a half decades after Butler’s prophetic words, another famous general warned America to beware of the gravity-warping defense industry.
This article will examine their warnings and show the causal links of how the Defense industry has perverted American foreign policy decisions for generations.
Butler’s Prophetic Warning
Two-time Medal of Honor recipient Major General Smedley Butler, U.S. Marine Corps, didn’t hold back when he wrote War Is a Racket in 1935. The veteran of “The Small Wars” in the Western Hemisphere, the Great War, China during the Boxer Rebellion, and other campaigns, Butler had a depth of war experience, particularly in what some dubbed America’s colonial period. Based on decades of global combat experience, he exposed how wars serve the interests of a small, powerful group—corporations, bankers, and arms manufacturers—while the general public foots the bill in blood and taxes. Butler’s claim was simple: wars are fought not for freedom but for the massive profits that flow to these corporations.
Another general officer echoed his sentiment. The Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), coined by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his 1961 farewell address, represents the deeply intertwined relationship between the U.S. government, its military, and private defense contractors. Eisenhower's warning was clear: the growing influence of the defense industry could distort U.S. foreign policy, keeping the nation engaged in unnecessary wars that serve corporate interests rather than national security. As the U.S. waged long, costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Butler and Eisenhower’s cautionary words became more relevant than ever as defense corporations wielded their influence to prolong these conflicts, ensuring endless profits.
The MIC's evolution into what some scholars now call the “political-industrial complex” shows how corporate interests shape defense policy and prolong wars through political donations, lobbying, and the revolving door between the Department of Defense and private contractors. By examining defense contractors' role in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, it's evident that the most influential players—corporations like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and General Dynamics—played a pivotal role in ensuring the U.S. remained militarily engaged for decades. The profits these companies secured were directly linked to U.S. foreign policy, driven by the MIC's growing influence over political decision-making.
Iraq War: The Corporate Bonanza
The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq serves as a quintessential example of how corporate profits and political interests can align to prolong military conflict. Officially launched to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship and dismantle its alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq War quickly revealed a different motive: corporate profit. Defense contractors reaped extraordinary financial rewards as the U.S. occupied Iraq for nearly a decade. Halliburton, one of the most notorious beneficiaries, earned $39.5 billion in contracts, often through no-bid deals, for providing logistics, fuel, and reconstruction services. As American taxpayers footed a $2 trillion bill, and over 4,500 U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians died, the corporate elite thrived.
Defense contractors played a crucial role in sustaining the war by supplying goods and services and lobbying for increased military spending. Companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin routinely advocated for more defense dollars, directly benefiting from extended military engagements. In 2020 alone, defense contractors spent over $100 million on lobbying to ensure that defense budgets remained high, regardless of the actual need for military presence. This consistent flow of contracts and revenue created an economic and political incentive to perpetuate the war, not to end it.
Afghanistan: The Endless War for Profit
If Iraq was a goldmine for defense contractors, Afghanistan was a treasure trove of even greater proportions. Spanning two decades, the U.S. war in Afghanistan represents the longest military engagement in American history. Despite the lack of a clear strategy or endgame, the U.S. funneled over $2.3 trillion into the conflict, enriching defense contractors in the process. Companies like Raytheon, Boeing, and Lockheed Martin secured billions of dollars in contracts for everything from fighter jets to missile defense systems. For them, the continuation of the war meant continued revenue growth. Raytheon’s stock, for instance, surged during the war years as the company provided missile systems and other systems used in Afghanistan.
It could reasonably be argued that the Afghanistan war was sustained not because of military necessity but due to corporate profits and political interests. Writing for “The Atlantic,” Elliot Ackerman argued that the political-industrial complex created an environment where military engagement became self-perpetuating. Defense contractors, benefiting from long-term contracts, had no incentive to see the war end. Lobbying efforts by defense contractors ensured that military budgets remained robust, even as public support for the war waned. Moreover, as military officers and government officials moved into lucrative positions at defense firms, the revolving door phenomenon solidified corporate influence over defense policy.
The Revolving Door: A Conflict of Interest
The revolving door between the Pentagon and defense contractors is another clear example of how corporate interests have shaped U.S. foreign policy. Many high-ranking military officers and government officials responsible for managing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan later transitioned into lucrative positions within the private defense sector. For example, James Mattis, former Secretary of Defense, joined the board of General Dynamics shortly after leaving government service, demonstrating the close ties between the Pentagon and the defense industry.
This revolving door creates conflicts of interest that serve to prolong military conflicts. When military officers know that their future employment may depend on the goodwill of defense contractors, they are less likely to support policies that would reduce military spending or cut back on defense contracts. The result is a defense policy shaped more by corporate interests than by genuine national security concerns, leading to endless wars that serve primarily to enrich defense companies.
In President Eisenhower's farewell address he stated, "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Lobbying and Political Donations: Buying Influence
Lobbying and political donations by defense contractors have long been recognized as powerful tools in shaping U.S. defense policy. Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, among others, have consistently ranked among the top corporate spenders on lobbying, using their financial clout to influence policymakers. By 2020, Lockheed Martin alone had spent $13 million on lobbying, much of it directed at ensuring that the Pentagon maintained a high level of defense spending. This lobbying ensures that defense contractors maintain a steady stream of revenue from military engagements, whether through direct contracts, arms sales, or other forms of military support.
Political donations also play a crucial role in maintaining the political-industrial complex. Defense contractors contribute millions to both Democratic and Republican candidates, ensuring that their interests are represented regardless of who is in power. This bipartisan financial support helps guarantee that defense budgets remain high and that U.S. military engagements continue. Politicians, reliant on defense contractor donations to fund their campaigns, are unlikely to push for policies that cut military spending or reduce defense contracts. This dynamic helps explain why the U.S. remained in Iraq and Afghanistan for so long despite mounting public pressure to withdraw.
The Political-Industrial Complex: A Symbiotic Relationship
The term "political-industrial complex" refers to the deep entanglement of corporate, military, and political interests that drive U.S. defense policy. Through lobbying and political donations, defense contractors have forged a symbiotic relationship with the U.S. government, ensuring a steady flow of contracts and military engagements. In return, politicians receive campaign contributions and political support from these powerful corporations, creating a self-reinforcing military engagement and profit cycle.
The political-industrial complex has become so entrenched that it now plays a central role in shaping U.S. foreign policy. Decisions about where and when to engage militarily are influenced by corporate interests, with defense contractors pushing for continued military operations that ensure their financial success. This dynamic has led to a situation where wars, like those in Iraq and Afghanistan, are not fought solely for strategic reasons but also for the financial benefit of private corporations. The influence of the political-industrial complex means that military engagement is less about national security and more about sustaining corporate profits.
A Call to Action: Disincentivize War Profiteering Now
The motivations behind wars should be scrutinized to ensure accountability from leaders and to minimize the influence of the defense industry on government. Efforts should be made to discourage war profiteering through reforms targeting financial, legal, and political structures. The following practical approaches can be explored to achieve these goals:
Adopt a Universal Cost - Plus Model
By imposing strict limits on how much profit corporations can earn from military contracts, governments can diminish the incentive for companies to advocate for war. Adopting a cost-plus model with clear profit ceilings would prevent excessive gains and align contracts more closely with actual costs.
Regulate Defense Sector Lobbying
Disincentivizing lobbying by defense contractors is also crucial. Enforcing strict regulations and penalties on defense contractors who lobby for war or military intervention could deter such practices. Creating public registries and transparency laws would expose lobbying efforts, and making it illegal for defense companies to fund political campaigns or influence foreign policy would further curtail their power.
Prohibit No-Bid Contracts
Ending no-bid contracts is another important reform. By requiring competitive bidding for all defense contracts, governments can eliminate opportunities for corruption and overpricing associated with no-bid deals. Competitive bidding ensures fair competition and better pricing, reducing the potential for profiteering.
Establish and Enforce Clear Legal Parameters
Establishing legal mechanisms to hold corporate executives personally liable for using undue influence to profit from conflicts is crucial. CEOs and board members could face fines, criminal charges, or asset seizures if their companies are found guilty of benefiting from unnecessary wars or human rights violations.
Combatting war profiteering requires comprehensive reforms such as adopting these recommendations to hold corporations accountable and reduce their excessive sway. These measures aim to dismantle the financial incentives behind military conflicts and curtail the defense industry's influence on the government. The priority should be preventing unnecessary wars and ensuring that national security decisions are driven by genuine threats, not profit motives.
Conclusion: The Legacy of the Political-Industrial Complex
Smedley Butler's "War Is a Racket" remains a poignant critique of the military-industrial complex and the economic motivations behind warfare. In today's global landscape, the relevance of Butler's insights is underscored by ongoing debates about defense spending, the influence of private military contractors, and the ethical implications of endless war profiteering.
Butler's work emphasizes the importance of transparency and accountability in policymaking as global conflicts continue. It urges stakeholders to examine the true motives behind warfare and advocate for peace and humanitarian-focused strategies over financial interests. President Dwight D. Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the undue influence of the MIC reinforces Butler’s point. Reflection on Butler and Eisenhower's arguments prompts a critical evaluation of the relationship between economics and war, promoting ethical decision-making and genuine pursuit of national interests.
The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan highlight the influential role of the political-industrial complex in shaping U.S. defense policy. Defense contractors have wielded their financial power to sway policymakers, prolong military engagements, and secure ongoing profits, solidifying their position in U.S. foreign policy decision-making through lobbying, political contributions, and the revolving door between government and the private sector.
As long as defense contractors can profit from war, and use these large profits to buy influence with politicians, they will continue influencing U.S. foreign policy. The result is a defense policy driven by corporate interests rather than by the genuine security needs of the nation. To effectively combat war profiteering, comprehensive reforms are essential. Adopting a cost-plus model with profit ceilings, regulating defense sector lobbying, prohibiting no-bid contracts, and holding corporate executives legally accountable represent practical measures to dismantle the financial incentives behind military conflicts. Additionally, the influence of corporate money in politics must be ended, and the revolving door between the government and the private sector permanently closed. Only by addressing the root causes of the political-industrial complex can the U.S. hope to avoid future wars driven more by profit than by principle.
Endnotes:
1. Center for Responsive Politics. "Defense: Lobbying, 2020." OpenSecrets. Accessed September 11, 2024. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?ind=D.
2. Fang, Lee. "The Defense Contractor’s Dilemma." The Intercept, September 10, 2021. https://theintercept.com/2021/09/10/afghanistan-war-defense-contractors/.
3. Crawford, Neta C. "Profits of War: Corporate Beneficiaries of the Post-9/11 Pentagon Spending Surge." Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs, Brown University, September 2021. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2021/ProfitsOfWar.
4. Elliot Ackerman, "Did America Win the War on Terror?" The Atlantic, September 11, 2021. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/did-america-win-war-terror/620002/.
5. Project on Government Oversight. "Pentagon Revolving Door Spinning Fast." September 13, 2021. https://www.pogo.org/report/2021/09/pentagon-revolving-door.
6. Fang, Lee. "James Mattis Joins General Dynamics Board." The Intercept, August 7, 2019. https://theintercept.com/2019/08/07/james-mattis-general-dynamics-board/.
7. Center for Responsive Politics. "Lockheed Martin: Lobbying." OpenSecrets. Accessed September 11,
Comments