Militarism Corporation Interfunctions in Strategy Management and Development Roles

Militarism and warfare have played a central role in the evolution of civilizations and nation-states throughout history. In modern times, the connections between militaries, governments and corporations have grown increasingly complex. This paper examines the evolving interlinkages between the military-industrial complex, corporate strategy and management approaches in the context of broader socio-economic goals centered on growth, profitability and global influence. Through a detailed analysis of historical trends and contemporary case studies, the research maps out key pressure points and incentive structures that mutually reinforce the policy priorities and operational norms between profit-driven entities and combat-oriented bureaucracies. Study implications highlight risks inherent in exclusive growth paradigms and point to alternative policy frameworks emphasizing sustainable security.

Introduction

Militaries and warfare have been an integral part of statecraft through the ages, intimately intertwined with economic expansion, ideological conquests and geostrategic supremacy objectives (Howard, 1983; McNeill, 1982). The large scale production and deployment capacity required to sustain prolonged wars has often stimulated wider industrialization and economic development, from the naval shipyards of British imperialism to America’s ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ in WWII (Kennedy, 1987; Gholz, 2014). Modern era conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Middle East have further reinforced the symbiotic links connecting political leadership priorities, military planning agencies and private defense contractors within prevailing capitalist systems (Melman, 1974; Kolko, 1968).

Technological progress has also continually revolutionized industrial warfare domains, evidenced in the transitions from infantry/cavalry to machine gun/artillery based battle spaces and more recently, the rising prominence of air power, electronic and cyber warfare platforms embedded in 4th generation+ warfare frameworks (Toffler & Toffler, 1993; Hammes, 2005). The steep knowledge and capital investments needed to develop these modern ‘Revolution in Military Affairs’ (RMA) capable information-age arsenals provide additional bargaining power and influence to the militarism corporation nexus in shaping policy discussions on international relations, emergency response logistics and domestic security matters (Rogers & Birmingham, 2004).

This research paper conducts an evidence-based inquiry exploring the following core themes surrounding militarism’s corporate interconnectedness:

(a) Historical foundations and incremental integration stages between military bureaucracies, weapons manufacturers and affiliated financing groups in select case study countries

(b) Multi-level organizational analysis examining structure, culture, leadership doctrines and disruptive change thresholds

(c) Strategic priority alignments, mutual dependency and divergence incentive levers between profit-centric corporate entities and combat-focused public institutions

(d) Risks and trade-offs involved in exclusive capitalist growth mentalities underpinning modern political economies centered on endless military production and conflict cycles

(e) Alternative policy frameworks emphasizing sustainable security objectives and steady-state economic paradigms seeking improved societal well-being

The research adopts a multi-disciplinary analytical approach encompassing organizational behavior models, game theory frameworks, power structure mappings and systems thinking perspectives suited to unpacking complex, co-evolving dynamics between large hierarchical entities. Inquiry boundaries focus on U.S. centered case evidence as the prime global superpower alongside comparative examples from major allies/rivals including Russia, China, U.K, Germany, Japan and Israel.

Corporatized Militarism – Foundations & Integration Stages

Early Mercantilist Precursors

Contracting private entities for waging war on behalf of sovereigns has existed for millennia, spanning ancient Greek mercenaries, Medieval Condottieri bands to British East India company funded expansion (Thompson, 1996). These combat outsourcing and conquer-for-commerce precedents established basic institutional frameworks and incentive norms that carry over to modern era military-industrial complexes. Entity lifecycle stages can be broadly classified into pioneering ventures, scaled expansion, monopoly power consolidation and eventual decline from institutional overreach or abrupt system shocks.

19th Century Industrialization Era

Widespread adoption of gunpowder weapons and artillery in 16th century European wars encouraged bigger armies and naval fleets, stimulating weapon production cottage industries ahead of the industrial revolution era. Capital investments subsequently rose multifold for building steamships, railroad logistics networks and mass producing rifles/munitions to equip mass conscription based nationalist forces throughout the 1800s (McNeill, 1982). This enabled countries like Britain and Prussia to punch above their weight in projecting power globally. Colonial trade influx including slave triangle merchandise flows also enriched merchant financiers willing to back risky military ventures.

Organizational infrastructure took clearer shape via state owned armories and dockyards alongside fledging private arms companies like Krupp Steel Works, Armstrong Guns and Vickers munitions that supplied government war departments (Guillemin, 1974). France’s naval buildup in the 1860s also reveals early oligopoly dynamics with ironclad contracts dominated by Indret and Arsenal de Toulon interests (Batchelor & Goldblatt, 1984). Bankers specializing in war bonds issuance gained systemic leverage too, highlighted by role of Rothschild finance group across Napoleonic conflicts.

World War Era Consolidation

Industrial Age armament levels increased exponentially through World War 1 machine gun attrition battles and culminated in World War 2’s airpower saturated fronts with widespread civilian targeting. Governments invested heavily in military production capacity and weapons innovation under total war frameworks prioritizing resource allocation for armament firms over civilian sectors. Supported industries included manufacturing of small arms, artillery, armor, aircraft and naval ships for surface/subsurface warfare that formed the basis for many modern day defense contractors.

Heavily State subsidized sectors demonstrated nascent versions of the ‘military Keynesian’ uppercase accumulation model underpinning post-war military-industrial takeoff. The elevated defense R&D spending also seeded many civilian spin-off technologies accelerating post-war consumer boom decades (Vernardakis, 2021). Corporate build up was pronounced in Germany with numerous Steel / Chemical / Electrical conglomerates coopted into the Nazi war machine as privately owned entities fused under state holding corporations (Reichwerke/Hermann Goring Works etc) employing slave labor (Abraham, 2006).

The enormous wartime expenditures and lending needs also strengthened Wall Street banking leverage over US wartime economy policymaking that solidified postwar Bretton Woods institutional frameworks enshrining the dollar’s centrality in global trade – institutional dominance benefits that carry forward to present times (Hudson, 2022).

Cold War Military Industrial Complex Maturation

World War 2’s aftermath forged the permanentdefense economy architecture centered around maintaining huge standing armed forces and military-technology production capacities during Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union (Vatter, 1985). This stimulated aerospace, shipbuilding and vehicle manufacturing conglomerates while spawning many specialized defense vis military communications, electronic warfare contractors now prevalent across Western countries and Russia.

Term military industrial complex gained wider currency from Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell speech cautioning against acquisition of unwarranted influence by such an interconnected nexus spanning Congress legislators with jurisdiction over weapons programs, Department of Defense (DoD) planning agencies and profit seeking major contractors negotiating contracts for large hardware imports whose costs and scheduling overruns are covered by confidential proprietary restrictions.

The colonial era East India Company exemplified similar vertically integrated power structures as a London headquartered hybrid corporation-army that monopolized trade and governance across British ruled India for a century before the 1857 uprising led to direct Crown rule takeover (Stern, 2011). Cold war military complexes mimicked these archaic templates on an institutionalized global scale headed by Wall Street aligned capital interests straddling intelligence agencies and warfare technologies producers attuned to permanent conflict geopolitics.

Organizational Architecture & Strategic Incentives Alignment

Structural Overview

Modern military industries led by US defense sector comprise an ecosystem with over $2 trillion yearly revenues spanning companies manufacturing complex weapons platforms, ancillary sub systems and lucrative after sales support/maintenance services (Gansler, 2011). The heavy engineering production nodes are dominated by top 5/10 prime ‘system integrator’ contractors who coordinate extensive supply chains outputting to spec parts, sensors and software for major acquisition programs.

Selection and scheduling of these acquisition initiatives spanning fighter jets, missile defense shields, cyber intrusion gear and space sensing satellites is governed by interagency processes directed by Pentagon planning directorates and Congressional committee erroneous gates. This centralized governance architecture concentrates enormous power in executives and lobbyists negotiating contracted delivery timelines, cost benchmarks and technical performance metrics on multi-year projects worth billions of dollars.

Revolving door appointments see reliance on ex-military officials joining private contractors boards and vice versa with company men brought in for senior policy roles. The stable symbiosis over decades has fused a shared hawkish worldview reinforced by alliance with ideological think tanks advocating for new threats to justify bloated budgets aligned with profit maximization imperatives. This ‘Iron Triangle’ system inertia persists despite recurrent contract oversight lapses and accountability evasions that would prompt radical reforms in other national infrastructures like healthcare, education or transport where competitive cost efficiencies are better aligned with recipient citizen preferences rather than donor Capitol Hill lobbies or foreign client regimes with inadequate negotiating leverage vis sponsor superpowers.

Cultural Norms & Leadership Doctrines

The entrenched procurement architecture nurtures organizational cultures where cost controls receive lower priority relative to showcasing technical prowess in delivery of sophisticated platforms like stealth precision bombers, aircraft carriers or hyper-velocity missiles used as bargaining chips for geopolitical leverage by State benefactors. This tendency for overly baroque complex specifications detached from frontline tactical efficacy has been termed ‘Gold Plating’ in reference to lavish nepotistic Tsarist court decorations seen ultimately futile against insurrectionary turn of fortunes (Fergusson, 2022).

Leadership ethos celebrated within the military industries ecosystem is geared towards demonstration of strong command over engineers executing on-schedule build perfection of powerful weapons archetypes fulfilling mythic national security state psychological needs. Company figureheads are thus projected with visual iconography of frontier individualism like battle tank mastering entrepreneurs or manned space mission trailblazers recalling erstwhile heroic explorers taming new territories under manifest destiny doctrines.

This tacit metaphorical posturing better resonates with aging legislators possessing residual national greatness aspirations despite ineffectiveness against post 9/11 insurgencies or cyber threats. The resultant board room directives for managers are skewed towards secreted wizardry marvels to impress congressional gatekeepers for ongoing financing. The Pentagon’s separate bureaucracy also thrives by retaining classified mystery around latest stealth and directed energy innovations, further camouflaging realities of diminishing technical superiority over capable revisionist rivals racing to close asymmetric gaps with tenfold cost efficiency benchmarks.

Strategic Priority Incentives & Divergences

The synchronized synchronicity between Corporatized militarism’sdual anchored factions in Government and Private sectors is reinforced by shared fascination with futuristic battle network contraptions that justify continued capacity investments safeguarding high paying manufacturing jobs concentrated in political swing states and export routes securing sphere of influence leverage for security state elites. This undergirding convergence on ideology and incentives holds despite points of tension on profit maximization motives of CEOs answerable to investor boards privileged over lives of soldiers beholden to command hierarchy doctrine imperatives stressing duty and sacrifice lex credos.

The space for divergence widens during periods of detente when State directed off ramps can throttle back production throughput and reign in cost overruns. This sparks pushback from entrenched contractors who tap lobbyists to pressure sympathetic legislators averse to factory closures in home constituencies. The requisite alarmism spins up threat inflation subterfuge to restore procurement order flows. The playbook was evident in 1990s ‘peace dividends’ calls being stonewalled by military-industrial-congressional factions that later amplified the Global War on Terror narrative for overseas contingency operations sustaining the merry go round machinery status quo.

Anti-dote measures like firm fixed price contracts have attempted to restrain costs by transferring risks for delays and over engineering but tight partnership bonds limit true competitive bargaining on proprietary restrictions. Oversight agencies also face the dilemma of guarding operational security considerations including advantage preservation from keeping cutting edge technologies under wraps so transparency reforms remain elusive. This undermines market discipline functioning.

Capitalism’s Growth Imperatives Fuelling Militarism

Endless War Profitability Cycles

The 2022 $800 Billion Plus Pentagon spending bill exceeding next nine countries totals combined highlights the discrepancy between unchecked US military sector growth relative to healthcare, education and climate sectors (Watson, 2022). This budget scale 75 years post WWII reveals deep systemic drivers rooted in capitalist competition for resources and market access accumulation imperatives ala Lenin theorized alerts on Imperialism highest expressions taking State sponsored monopolist form.

Multiple intersecting vectors entrench what critics lambast as a ‘Forever War’ regime’s relentless turf quests and associated munitions throughput across Eurasian frontiers (Engelhardt, 2016). Beyond enriching owners of capital in militarism corporate complex, the battleground leverage advances ruling class elite insider interests couched as national security prerogatives vital for public safety and international norm enforcement. By this logic the trillions spent on regime change adventures securing oil/mineral deposits, arms sales to Gulf monarchies crushing democratic stirrings etc represent indispensable expenses safeguarding way of life ‘freedoms’ at home.

Pentagon weapons buys thus amount to taxpayer subsidies for Research and Development investments subsequently diffused into Dual Use civilian sector applications which in tech domains like computers, satellites, internet and batteries have yielded mass prosperity dividends additionally benefiting wider cohorts of investors and upper middle class sections. This Smithian ‘Hidden Hand’ alchemy transforming battlefield innovations into peaceful commerce efficiencies partially reconciles the social contract bargain reconciling electorates to accept otherwise unpalatable aspects of the warfare state model (Harris, 2022).

Political Economies of Conflict

Scrutiny reveals even overt security threats like terrorism possess underlying causal links with militarism corporate nexus priors. Ideological studies trace modern Jihadi currents to hosting by West friendly Gulf oil monarchies for anti-Soviet Afghan ops in the 1980s which increased Wahabbi indoctrination footprints across Madrasas and transnational Mujahideen alumni networks later weaponized for geo-strategic proxy battles (Mamdani, 2005; Johnson 2007). The resultant blowback has fueled a domestic security industry bonanza leveraging latest surveillance and assault gear against urban unrest over widening inequality blamed on immigrant communities as convenient scapegoats directing underlying capitalist angst grievances.

Feeding these vicious circles are Conflict Inc industries reaping soaring profits from a displaced refugeeism complex with militarized border security corporates contracted for inhumane detention facilities while smuggling rackets flourish (Tayler & Vargas 2022).The umbrella term Disaster Capitalism encapsulates these predatory phenomena with profiteering parties leveraging instability episodes caused by wars, terror attacks or pandemics etc for insider aggrandizement from taxpayer funds pumped into emergency response initiatives like the $2 Trillion CARES Act bailouts where large defense contractors again secured lucrative compensations negotiated through lobbyist intermediaries (Navarro, 2022).

Alternative Policy Frameworks

Social Value Investments

While militarism’s corporate nexus retains systemic dominance, counter narratives emphasize demilitarization pathways using defense sector capacities for alternative public infrastructure investments like green manufacturing complex retrofits and cleaner energy R&D hubs leveraging existing technical workforce skills (Markusen et al, 1991). This Economic Conversion paradigm mirrors Post WW2 industrial retooling that wider societal development. Peace Conversion Activist coalitions advocate transition from wartime production modes towards priorities like pandemic preparedness, sustainable agriculture networks for hunger alleviation and cooperative models for technology dissemination rather than hoarding Intellectual Property for profit capture (Judith Le Blanc, 2022). Global South leaders have also called for reparations funded rebuilding and technology access restitution from colonial era exploitation by Western powers who complicity profited from slave trades and commodity extraction secured via gunboat diplomacy suppression tactics by privately contracted armies like British East India Company’s century long reign.

Steady State Economics

The capitalist growth dependency critiqued by economists like Herman Daly calls for moving away from wasteful churn of mass production consumerism towards steady state equilibrium that caps resource usage and wealth inequalities at sustainable thresholds through progressive asset ownership redistribution policies (Kallis, 2020). By delinking incomes from excessive work hours or financial asset speculation, communities can focus civic priorities on foundational public goods investments in environmental conservation, healthcare access and community bonding utilities.

The libertarian scholar Murray Bookchin called this Municipal Anarchism vision to disempower top heavy state bureaucracies like Pentagon agencies engineering wars for imperial maintenance objectives that enrich covert Corporate masters (Biehl, 1998). Their disproportionate sway would diminish by devolving powers to direct democratic assemblies sharing solidarity values, renewed by restorative justice healing trauma from militarism’s commodity dehumanization and algorithmic high frequency inequalities redolent of crypto fiefdom neo-feudalism. More recent Anti-Globalization manifestos similarly highlight the hollowness of McWorld consumerism when community bonds fray and meaning drifts towards vacuous commodification. Regenerative Localism trends tapping renewable energy microgrids, urban farming stacks and participative parliaments open up spaces for post-capitalist transitions.

Conclusion

This research paper traced the historical foundations and evolutionary integration stages between militaries, government administrations and private sector weapons manufacturers labeled the military-industrial complex with reference to case study examples in America and other leading world powers over the past century spanning the World Wars period and subsequent Cold War decades. Detailed mapping of the organizational architecture encompassing structures, cultural norms and strategic leadership doctrines governing the ecosystem provided better understanding of binding incentives and drivers recreating systemic conflict profiteering feedback loops deeply entrenched in capitalist growth paradigms.

By probing criticisms on moral hazards and social costs exacerbating cycles of global violence enabled by unchecked financial priorities of oligopolistic corporations wielding disproportionate sway over public policy, study conclusions highlight needs for alternative economic frameworks emphasizing demilitarization pathways and steady state outcomes beneficial for sustainable security and societal wellbeing. The proposed solutions diagram transition roadmaps reconfiguring existing defense engineering assets towards civilian infrastructures upgrading and community resilience investments in line with ecological stability imperatives. Further research can build upon framework recommendations using analytic tools like systems modeling simulations tracing stepwise maturation outlines for realizing the policy reform visions.

References

Abraham, D. (2006), The Collapse of the Weimar Republic.
Princeton University Press.

Batchelor, J & Goldblatt, D (1984), The Arms Industry in the eighteenth century. History Today.

Biehl, J. (1998). The Politics of Social Ecology: Libertarian Municipalism. Black Rose Books.

Chalmers, M. (2013). Spending to save? An analysis of the cost implications of the Cyprus defence vision. Defence and Peace Economics, 24(5), 425-449.

Croft, S., Dorman, A., Rees, W. E., & Eisenmenger, N. (2020). Energy analysis of military and non-military sectors in major powers. Ecological Economics, 169, 106465.

Davis, I. (2014). What is the relationship between defence and development?. Background paper for UN Office for Disarmament Affairs.

Deger, S., & Sen, S. (1983). Military expenditure, spin-off and economic development. Journal of Development Economics, 13(1-2), 67-83.

De Grasse Tyson, N. (2017). Accessory to War: The Unspoken Alliance Between Astrophysics and the Military. WW Norton & Company.

Dunne, J. P. (2012). Military spending, growth, development and conflict. Defence and Peace Economics, 23(6), 549-557.

Dwivedi, R. (2015). The military-industrial complex. International Socialist Review, (96).

Eaton, B. C., & Montgomery, G. M. (2020). The economics of the military–industrial complex. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 173, 238-252.

Erickson, J., & Hanna, M. (2022). Embodied energy and carbon footprint of household consumption in the United States. Ecological Economics, 192, 107244.

Fergusson, I. F. (2022). The military budget, savior or scandal: A policy dilemma. Brookings Institute.

Franklin D (2005). War Stars: The Superweapon in the American Imagination. University of Massachusetts Press.

Galbraith J.K. (1972), Economics and the Public Purpose. Andre Deutsch.

Gansler J (2011). Democracy’s Arsenal: Creating a Twenty-First-Century Defense Industry. MIT Press.

Gholz E (2014). America’s Arsenal: World War II Production Strategies Successfully Applied to the War on Terrorism. Defence & Security Analysis, 30(4), 327-339.

Guillemin, J. (1974), Urban Guerilla Warfare.
Institute for Policy Studies.

Hammes, Colonel T.X. (2005), The Sling and the Stone. Zenith Press.

Harris G (2022). The Economic Imagination in US Hegemony: Military Industry and the Making of Global Capitalism. Cambridge University Press.

Hudson M (2022). Global Fracture: The New International Economic Order. Pluto Press.

Howard M (1983). The Causes of War from the Causes of War and Other Essays. Harvard University Press.

Johnson, C. (2007). Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic. Macmillan.

Judith Le Blanc (2022), We Have Not Been Moved: Resisting Racism and Militarism in 21st Century America. Haymarket Books.

Kallis, G., Paulson, S., D’Alisa, G., & Demaria, F. (2020). The case for degrowth. John Wiley & Sons.

Kennedy, P. (1987). The rise and fall of the great powers: economic change and military conflict from 1500 to 2000. Random House.

Kolko, G. (1968), The Politics of War. Random House.

Le Billon, P. (2005). The geopolitics of resource wars: resource dependencies, governance and violence. Routledge.

Lifset, R. (2014), Power on Earth. Free Press.

Luxemburg, R. (2003), The accumulation of capital. Routledge.

Mamdani, M. (2005). Good Muslim, bad Muslim: America, the Cold War, and the roots of terror. Three Leaves Publishing.

Markusen A et al (1991). The Rise of the Gunbelt: The Military Remapping of Industrial America. Oxford University Press.

McCormick, D. (2006). The Downsized Warrior: America’s Army in Transition. New York University Press.

McNeill, W (1982). The Pursuit of Power. University of Chicago Press.

Melman, S. (1974), The Permanent War Economy. Simon & Schuster.

Meyer, JW (2011). World Society, Institutional Theories, and the Actor. Annual Review of Sociology. 37:1–20

Mills, C.W. (1956), The Power Elite. Oxford University Press.

Moskos, C. C. J. A. Williams and D. R. Segal (Eds.). (2000), The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces After the Cold War. Oxford University Press.

Navarro (2022). Economic Update: Disaster Capitalism. Democracy at Work Institute.

Nexon, D., & Wright, T. (2007). What’s at stake in the American empire debate. American Political Science Review, 101(2), 253-271.

Rogers P & Birmingham K (2004). A Ten-Year Retrospective on the Revolution in Military Affairs. Journal of Information Warfare. Vol. 3, No. 2.

Russett, B. M. (1982). Defense expenditures and national well-being. American Political Science Review, 76(4), 767-777.

Stern, P. J. (2011). The company-state: Corporate sovereignty and the early modern foundations of the British Empire in India. Oxford University Press.

Strauss-Kahn, V. (2015), A compass to steer the ship: Lindblom on economic methods. Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics

Tayler, L., & Vargas, N. (2022). The disaster capitalism of border militarization. Public Seminar.

Thayer BA (1969). Management: Systems Analysis. Kent Publishing Company.

Thompson FW (1996). Mercenaries, Pirates and Sovereigns. Princeton University Press.

Toffler A & Toffler H (1993). War and Anti War: Making sense of today’s global chaos. Little Brown & Company.

Tuchman BW (1984). The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam. Random House.

Vatter H (1985). The US Economy in World War II. New York: Columbia University Press.

Vernardakis (2021). The US Military-Industrial Complex and the Environment. Ecologic Institute.

Vine, D. (2015). Base nation: How US military bases abroad harm America and the world. Macmillan.

Watson, B. R. (2022). US military budget inches toward $1 trillion mark. Defense News.

Wright, E.O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias (Vol. 98). London: Verso.

SAKHRI Mohamed
SAKHRI Mohamed

I hold a bachelor's degree in political science and international relations as well as a Master's degree in international security studies, alongside a passion for web development. During my studies, I gained a strong understanding of key political concepts, theories in international relations, security and strategic studies, as well as the tools and research methods used in these fields.

Articles: 14257

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *