1 / 25

The Iron Triangle

The Iron Triangle. The Political Influence of the Military. I. The Cold War and Permanent Defense. Strong military is institutionalized – becomes interest group vying for government funds. 1. Defense Spending Since 1940. 2. USA vs. Everyone Else.

cain
Download Presentation

The Iron Triangle

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Iron Triangle The Political Influence of the Military

  2. I. The Cold War and Permanent Defense • Strong military is institutionalized – becomes interest group vying for government funds

  3. 1. Defense Spending Since 1940

  4. 2. USA vs. Everyone Else USA: $586.25 billion in FY 2007 ($666 b in 2008) China Russia Japan UK France Italy India Israel Iran North Korea Germany S. Arabia S. Korea Syria Next 50 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

  5. 3. Bureaucracy Dominated by Defense

  6. DHS Spending 2006 2007 2008 2009

  7. B. Military resistance to nuclear warfighting: LNOs • Problem: US nuclear war plan (SIOP) had no contingency calling for less than a few hundred nuclear weapons • Eisenhower demands revisions to allow use of single weapons for political purposes (limited retaliation, response to conventional war) • So does Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan….yet SIOP never updated to include LNOs

  8. C. 1986: Goldwater-Nichols • Origins: • Failed/difficult joint operations of 1970s-1980s = Congressional pressure for interservice unity • Joint Chiefs of Staff (commanders of the services) oppose reorganization • Nearly five years of lobbying and horse-trading follow • Key provision for our purposes: Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff established as central military advisor to President • Effects • Notable reduction in inter-service rivalry • Military now speaks with one voice – more difficult for civilians to oppose

  9. II. The Military Learns to Play Politics A. Military Opposition to Clinton • Origins • Characteristics of the President: avoided Vietnam service, did drugs, expressed “loathing” for military service in 1969 letter, protested Vietnam War • Increasing partisanship in military (probably due to end of conscription) – military shifted Republican from 1970s-1990s (to about 2:1 in general, up to 9:1 among elite officers)

  10. Recent Trends: Rise of independents

  11. d. The “Gays in the Military” Controversy • Clinton promises to allow openly gay people to serve in the US Armed forces • Widespread military opposition prevents policy implementation • Colin Powell (Chairman of JCS) denounces policy in Congressional hearings • Two Marine officers publish editorial in Washington Post warning that unless JCS keeps ban, it risks “losing the loyalty of junior officers.” Notes that a soldier “swears allegiance to the Constitution, not to the Commander-in-Chief” • Congress responds to military lobbying by codifying ban as law, preventing future Presidents from overturning it

  12. 2. Symptoms: Repeated insubordination • Clinton’s first visit to aircraft carrier marked by open mockery to reporters by both enlisted personnel and officers • Air Force Major Gen. Harold Campbell forced to resign after he called President Clinton a "gay-loving, draft-dodging, pot-smoking, womanizing“ Commander-in-Chief • JCS openly opposes policies of Defense Secretary Les Aspin in 1993  repeated leaks to press by military officers  Clinton forces Aspin to resign • Air Force chief of staff retires early (unprecedented), criticizes Clinton

  13. B. Military Criticism of Rumsfeld • Rumsfeld tries to implement “Revolution in Military Affairs” – services oppose cuts in weapons systems • Rumsfeld attacks generals who insist occupation of Iraq will require more than 100,000 troops • Retired generals begin to criticize Rumsfeld • Democrats find many to sign anti-Rumsfeld statements • Republicans respond with pro-Rumsfeld generals of their own • Note: Civilian parties are competing for the “endorsement” of the military!

  14. C. Procurement: The “Iron Triangle” Congress, the Pentagon, and Defense Contractors

  15. 1. Campaign Cash: Defense Sector

  16. 2. Contracts and Congress • Pentagon and defense contractors spread sub-contract work to key districts/states • Programs often use many more contractors/locations than required, inflating costs (but maximizing political survivability)

  17. 4. Example: The F-22 Raptor a. Overview • Planned during Cold War to defeat future Soviet fighters • Estimated cost: $68 billion for 750 fighters (initial estimate)  now down to 339 fighters – at the same price • 1999: House tries to kill F-22 • All six members of JCS publicly condemn decision • Congress discovers F-22 has 1000 subcontractors in 42 states!

  18. b. Campaign Cash: Lockheed-Martin

  19. d. Outcome: F-22 Preserved • Clinton threatens to veto cuts to F-22 • House-Senate conference removes provision

  20. e. Long-Term: Decade required to kill the program • Rumsfeld fails to kill it (Congress refuses to cut it) • 2006: GAO recommends against further spending • F-22 still in FY2007 budget, despite repeated criticism by Rumsfeld • $65 billion now buys only 183 planes

  21. ii. Gates succeeds – after years of preparation • Gates takes office, avoids adversarial relationship with military (unlike Rumsfeld, he suggests no radical changes) • June 2008: Gates uses nuclear weapons screw-ups as excuse to fire Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff (both vocal supporters of the F-22) • 2009: Gates announces plan to kill the F-22 • Proposes speeding development of F-35 (also built by Lockheed) • New top Air Force officials write an editorial in favor of killing the program – even though they earlier supported it! • Lockheed fears losing the new funds, so backs off from lobbying for F-22. CEO: “I embrace Secretary Gates’s call to put the interests of the United States first — above the interests of agencies, services and contractors — and I will support him in every way.” • Representatives find it hard to mobilize voters without support of Lockheed – pro-F-22 forces are outvoted.

  22. 5. More examples: FY2006 Budget • Secretary of Navy proposes building new destroyer in one shipyard instead of two in MS and ME (saves $300 million) • MS, ME Senators place “hold” on Secretary’s promotion to deputy defense secretary • ME Senator attaches rider to defense bill in Armed Services Committee prohibiting consolidation of production • Rumsfeld suggests cutting major conventional systems for 5th year in a row -- effort is unsuccessful. Services propose cutting personnel to pay for new systems (the “Washington Monument ploy”)

  23. 6. Does the Iron Triangle threaten civilian control? • Executive control decreased: Evidence includes Carter’s naval strategy and resistance to Clinton/Rumsfeld • Congressional control increased: Unhappy commanders lobby Congress to undo DoD decisions • Isn’t this what Johnson wants – a move away from executive branch dominance?

  24. D. Conclusions • Military has become politicized • Permanent standing army is large enough to be economically important • Military (especially officers) have generally become more partisan (with possible recent decline) • Military has learned to protect interests within political system (organized lobbying) • Tradition of deference has changed: imagine generals publicly criticizing Lend-Lease or Truman’s integration of the Army

More Related