by Jerry Harris, SolidarityEconomy.net Hossein-zadeh has written an essential book on US imperialism and the influence of the military/industrial complex. His effort produces two unique insights on the economic importance of military funding and divisions within the US ruling class over the strategic direction of imperialism. On political economy Hossein-zadeh argues against the common view that the war in Iraq is mainly about oil. Instead his focus is on the economic base of the military/industrial complex itself and the need for profits via government funding. The author points to the continual pressure of the market and the need for greater accumulation as the basis for the development of militarism in US society. As he states; “The combination of private ownership and the market-driven character of the United States’ arms industries has drastically modified the conventional relationship between war and the means of warfare: it is now often the supply or profit imperatives of weapons production that drive the demand for arms, hence the need for war.” (p. 200) Hossein-zadeh defines this as militaristic or parasitic imperialism, an advance stage of development in which a permanent large military creates its own dynamic for self perpetuation. This differs from earlier stages of imperialism in which expansion abroad is driven mainly by the need for new markets, resources or territory. Although the author argues that military spending can boost the overall economy, he points to the drastic cuts in public spending on social needs as the main victim of militarism. An essential part of the book’s analysis is a careful look at the size and nature of military spending, its influence in government as well as its cultural impact. Beyond the Pentagon and military establishment are the 85,000 firms that profit from contracts and employ millions of workers. Hossein-zadeh integrates his analysis of economic militarism to an examination of splits within the US ruling class. Here he leads the reader on a historic investigation of strategic debates between transnational capitalists and political representatives of the military/industrial complex. Beginning in the 1970s with policy differences between the Trilateral Commission and unilateralist Committee on the Present Danger, the author traces this conflict to the Council on Foreign Relations and the emergence of neoconservative influence with their close ties to the Likud Party in Israel. This is more than a political rendition of policy positions. The author carries out a careful investigation of the many economic ties between advocates of military unilateralism and the military/industrial base. The author also sees a clear split between the globalist and unilateralist wings of US imperialism. As he says; “there have been two rival theories of imperialism: … free trade imperialism versus aggressive, colonial-type, or unilateral militarism. While benign or liberal imperialism usually relies on market efficiency and free trade to gain international economic advantage, heavy-handed military imperialism relies on military power to achieve global dominance.” (p. 148) The military/industrial complex is clearly based among corporations such as Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman. But Hossein-zadeh argues globalists “represent the interests of civilian or nonmilitary international capital, that is, of major banks and corporations with investment, production and sales on a global level.” (p.62) The political conflict between globalists and unilateralists has a firm basis in economic realities. As the book points out the military devours a huge share of national resources and creates an unstable international environment that drives up energy costs and undercuts global investments. While most of the burdens of militarism are shouldered by the general population, eventually the costs affect civilian capitalist interests forcing globalists to attempt to impose limits on military spending. While the book presents a convincing argument on the importance of the market in driving militarist policies it tends to discount the importance of military victory and geopolitical dominance. For example the author states; “Their primary concern, and their measure of success is the mere act or continuation of war…success for war profiteers…is based more on market imperatives than on the conventional military success on the battle field.” (p.176) From this viewpoint, defeat in Iraq seems of secondary importance as long as profits keep rolling in. Yet military defeat has enormous political implications for the role of the US in the world and loss of political control by the military/industrial hegemonic bloc. Budgetary questions can not be set aside from military outcomes when analyzing imperalist strategy. This point also goes to the importance of oil. Although Hossein-zadeh shows us that the oil industry did not promote the occupation of Iraq, the Bush White House still saw oil as a key factor in this war. As Vice-President Cheney’s National Energy Policy Development Group stated in the first months of the Bush administration; the US must “make energy security policy a priority of our trade and foreign policy.” Imperialism is a complex system rarely with one overriding or singular economic force driving its logic. Although militarism may drive the need for war, the military/industrial complex is part of a hegemonic bloc that includes various political forces each with their own particular political and economic imperatives. While war profits are an essential element to understand, we need to be cautious in privileging economics in political economy. Nevertheless, Hossein-zadeh has produced an insightful and important analysis that is a must read for anyone interested in militarism, its influence in the US and the character of US imperialism in today’s world.

email2friend