The author mentions "perverse" incentives in Congress, but what he doesn't mention (because it's a very politically difficult subject) is the perverse incentives afforded military officers. When you have a system in which it's so common as to be expected that the officers who influence your purchasing will in a couple years retire into a job with the private contractor from whom you're purchasing, you have a recipe for bias. Even from really standup people who don't recognize their own vulnerability to influence. It's just such a common thing to work in the private sector for the same office as you did when you were enlisted that nobody blinks an eye. Because it's often really good to still have those people around.
But at the same time, I think that's a pretty untenable situation. The military needs to do something to balance the career mobility of their officers with the ethical hazards of the current system. Without some rules to prevent the scenarios that have the most potential for abuse, the situation is not unlike the flow of Congress members into lobbying. Except we don't elect military officers.
It's a tough balance. Part of the promise of the military's recruiting is that you'll advance your career. They should fulfill that promise. At the same time, they need to make sure that the ways in which they fulfill that promise don't incentivize poor judgment on behalf of the public interest.
The basic perversity is building a gigantic military in peacetime because the arms companies have enormous lobbying power. Everything else flows from and is secondary to that.
Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States? By treaty alone, the US is required to defend almost all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea. These are not easy requirements to disentangle from; if Japan alone were allowed and required to rearm, it could lead to an arms race that would destabilize all of East Asia and either stall or undo the tremendous economic gains that have been achieved in that region. If it wasn't for US obligations towards NATO, most of Eastern Europe would suffer the same fate that Ukraine is facing from Russia. If it wasn't for the US Navy enforcing freedom of navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_navigation#United_St...), tinpot dictators could shut down international trade by making and enforcing illegal claims on international waters.
Maintaining the Pax Americana is a hard, unappreciated task.
Have you considered the gigantic military requirements that are placed on the United States?
Placed by whom, exactly? It's not as if the US took on those treaty commitments involuntarily or expecting no benefits in return, and it's not as if the rest of the world would not adapt if the US reduced its military commitments over time.
For example, you talk about the US being required by treaty to defend almost all of Europe, but Europe already has collective defence agreements that are becoming stronger over time, over a million active military service personnel, thousands of aircraft, thousands of heavy armoured vehicles, hundreds of ships, special forces to rival any in the world, and two independent nuclear powers. There is exactly one sovereign state on earth that could single-handedly give the combined forces of Europe a serious fight today, and the consequences for all concerned would be so devastating that such a conflict is almost inconceivable.
There is a reasonable school of thought that argues the world would be a much safer place if the number of military superpowers in it was zero, and that as the only old-school military superpower remaining, the US is therefore a negative factor on global stability and peaceful relations.
Given the recent track record of the US, both acting as an aggressor under often dubious conditions and failing to act as a defender when weaker nations faced aggression by others, there seems little no moral high ground for the US to take here, nor any general mandate to act as the world's policeman. The alarming frequency with which the US military and its political leadership presume to take such positions anyway brings me back to the previous point about the world being better off in the long run with no military superpowers at all.
The last time the US followed an isolationist foreign policy, the Europeans got themselves into two world wars in a row. It's true that Europe has a continent-wide mutual defense agreement now. What you didn't mention is that it's called NATO and the US is the backbone of it. That's part of how it works. Otherwise you don't get the combined forces of Europe, you get indifference at best and European war at worst.
Look at East Asia. South Korea can't afford to defend itself from the North and hope to maintain their standard of living, Japan is barred by their own constitution from rearming (and if they did, that would start a regional arms race), and Taiwan would have no hope of maintaining their self-determination by themselves.
I will be the first to say that the U.S. has followed an unnecessarily aggressive foreign policy. But a very large part of how the world works depends upon the American military, and if it just went away, we would all be poorer and less safe for it.
Your information appears to be a generation out of date. The EU in particular have been working on collective defence agreements independent of NATO for quite some time.
While it's true that if current US foreign policy went away overnight it would probably make certain other parts of the world less stable for a while, such rapid change couldn't actually happen as a practical matter of international diplomacy and even basic logistical issues. This isn't a logical reason not to move in a slower and more controlled way towards a more balanced position where power and responsibility are more widely distributed.
It also seems fair to observe that the US has caused a lot of instability in recent years with its aggressive foreign policies. A large part of how the world works may indeed depend on the American military as you say, but it isn't always in a good way.
During the 70 year US superpower reign, there have been zero major wars between history's powerful nations (Germany, China, Japan, Italy, Spain, Britain, France, India, Russia); there have been no major wars in Latin America (eg Brazil invading and destroying Colombia); and there have been no more world war equivalents. The worst we've seen have been very small scale, eg between India and China.
That's not a coincidence, it's a benefit provided by the US military's overwhelming superiority.
The US military has also taken an extreme share of the burden of keeping global trade / shipping lanes open and safe for operation - and it has done an extraordinary job at it.
The USSR wasn't going to just stop mid way through Germany, and Russia was obviously not going to just stop at Georgia. Who is going to act as a big enough deterrent to them? The same countries that prevented genocide in Europe's backyard in Kosovo? No, only the US is a powerful enough threat to Russia to keep them from going on a non-stop annexation spree.
That's not a coincidence, it's a benefit provided by the US military's overwhelming superiority.
Do you really think the British and the French haven't been re-enacting Waterloo lately because the United States asked us to play nicely?
Here are some other factually correct statements, using your definition of 'powerful nation':
"In the 70 years since the formation of the United Nations, there have been zero major wars between history's powerful nations."
"In the seven decades since they lost the Second World War, Germany has had zero major wars with nations that defeated them."
"Since the formation of the EEC, there have been zero major wars between its member states."
"In more than six decades since becoming a nuclear power, the UK has had zero major wars with other powerful nations."
Obviously numerous variations on these themes are also true.
The US military has also taken an extreme share of the burden of keeping global trade / shipping lanes open and safe for operation - and it has done an extraordinary job at it.
> The EU in particular have been working on collective defence agreements independent of NATO for quite some time.
"Working on" is a far cry from "tested and in force for decades", though. When push comes to shove, it's not clear that the EU member states would unanimously act in collective defense. Ultimately, while Europe may be able to collectively defend itself, it is certainly less capable of doing so without the aid of the United States.
Even setting Europe aside, what would you suggest for East Asia? Should Japan be allowed to rearm, potentially disrupting half a century of cordial relations and trade in the region? Should South Korea be left on their own to defend themselves from a North Korean army that outnumbers them two to one?
"Working on" is a far cry from "tested and in force for decades", though. When push comes to shove, it's not clear that the EU member states would unanimously act in collective defense. Ultimately, while Europe may be able to collectively defend itself, it is certainly less capable of doing so without the aid of the United States.
Against what threat, exactly? The big (physical, military) menace at the moment seems to be Russia, and European nations are now running almost continuous military exercises in eastern Europe to train for the possibility that any of those EU states might require protection from Russia aggression over the next few years. I don't know which banner they're operating under -- I'm guessing a lot of it is NATO -- but ultimately it's still European militaries co-ordinating to put the boots on the ground.
That said, realistically, the most effective way to protect ourselves against a belligerent Russia is probably economic anyway. Although some European states are dependent on Russia for energy supplies, that goes both ways, with Russia similarly dependent on Europe for having someone to pay for its natural resources. Neither side could trash that relationship today without suffering severely for it, but in the long run it favours Europe (because energy supplies are generally trending towards nuclear and ideally renewable sources anyway, giving Europe a credible long-term alternative, while Russia has relatively little other than energy exports to support its economy through international trade today).
Even setting Europe aside, what would you suggest for East Asia? Should Japan be allowed to rearm, potentially disrupting half a century of cordial relations and trade in the region? Should South Korea be left on their own to defend themselves from a North Korean army that outnumbers them two to one?
If you're going to make this kind of argument, you have to consider the effectiveness of armies. Bigger does not necessarily mean more effective if the little guy is better trained and/or has better technology.
More generally, I don't see why every nation should not be entitled to have a military force sufficient for its self-defence needs. The last world war ended 70 years ago. Concepts like expecting Germany or Japan of 2015 not to maintain effective militaries because of what Germany or Japan did in the 1930s and 1940s are obsolete.
In the modern world, I don't see why local agreements for mutual benefit could not provide similar assurances of defence and ultimately safer conditions than having the whole world depend on the US as you seem to want. It would take time to make the transition, but it would be better for everyone if that switch did happen over time. IMHO, that includes the US itself.
South Korea is in a unique situation in that their primary opponent is willing and able to starve their own people in order to build and maintain their war machine. Also, North Korea could level Seoul with artillery fire in a matter of minutes. Even if it is possible for South Korea to deter Northern aggression, it would be far costlier for them to do so alone than it is for them to do so with American help.
As for Japan, Japan and Germany are a false equivalence. Unlike Germany, Japan hasn't received the forgiveness of their neighbors yet. Relations between Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and even every minor Asian power would be considerably less friendly if Japan was allowed to rearm. You might convince me that the nations of Europe have learned to stop hating each other, but the nations of East Asia are a far different story, and there is nothing in the region like the EU to encourage peaceful cooperation.
You might convince me that the nations of Europe have learned to stop hating each other, but the nations of East Asia are a far different story, and there is nothing in the region like the EU to encourage peaceful cooperation.
And as long as the US continues to interfere in the regional politics to the same degree, there may never be.
There is a reasonable school of thought that argues the world would be a much safer place if the number of military superpowers in it was zero, and that as the only old-school military superpower remaining, the US is therefore a negative factor on global stability and peaceful relations.
So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1? That world wasn't exactly peaceful either. You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers. Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars. And in the end, a superpower or two (Spain and Portugal, France and Britain, USA and USSR) always emerges. In fact, it's the periods between superpower domination that have been the bloodiest, as declining superpowers and regional powers jockey to see who will be the next global hegemon.
So, in other words, you'd prefer a situation similar to the world as it was before World War 1?
I didn't say that.
You say that you would prefer a world with no superpowers.
I didn't actually say that either. I'm commenting on one particular theory, not expressing any sort of personal preference.
Such a world has existed, and it's always been rather unstable, with many regional powers jockeying for position, often leading to massive wars.
If you look far enough back through history, that is true.
Then again, periods with a single superpower that became aggressive have probably led to more death and damage than any other periods in modern history except for the World Wars, while two superpowers playing poker gets you the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Given the developments in both international diplomacy and military power since those historical periods, I don't think it is reasonable to assume that a lack of superpowers would necessarily have the same result in the future.
So will Germans fight for Greece ? I doubt so, so what if Poland is attacked are the Spainyards willing to fight and die for that. We all know, the answer, and its a resounding NO. Italians are not going to fight for estonians. When it hits the fan, and I am sure it will, Americanos will come to rescue and lead the charge. You have to not look beyond the late 90s and Kosovo, to look at the collective action, or should we say the inaction of European states.
European countries have gone to war over Poland before. The idea that the EU would sit back and allow another country to invade its member states is just crazy. If nothing else, it would cause huge financial disruption to all the other countries in the union.
Britain, France and Germany alone have a combined military budget greater than any other nation save the United States. The UK went to the other side of the planet last time its dependant territories were threatened. The idea that the EU wouldn't defend itself, when it has the capability, the motive, and a long and bloody history of warfare, is so bizarre I can't even begin to understand your reasoning.
China's military budget is likely beyond France + Britain + Germany. It's admitted to be $141 billion now, and most analysts think that's understated by upwards of 50%.
Europe is allowing Ukraine (of course not a EU member) to be destroyed right now. and Russia isn't done yet, they're going to take more territory. Europe at best has been half-limp in its response. Which makes sense given the energy ransom Russia holds over most of Europe's collective head.
Like Europe previously looked the other way while Georgia was sliced to pieces. What does that have to do with the EU? We're seeing that right now, Putin is being encouraged in Ukraine, he is seeing that there are no military consequences from the EU to taking non-EU European territory.
By the time Russia gets to Odessa, Moldova is going to look like a free acquisition. Belarus is another easy target for Russia, and Putin has already said 'unifying' with Belarus was desirable and possible. Is the EU going to war with Russia over Belarus? No chance, and that's as much in their backyard as you can get.
France, Britain and Germany have a combined budget of $167 billion, and even if China's military budget turns out to exceed that figure, that's only 3 of the EU's member states.
China's military is also severely lacking in combat experience. The US is one of the most battle-tested military forces in the world, has relatively little corruption compared to China, and yet it still suffers from projects like the F-35. It's hard to estimate how effectively that Chinese budget is being employed.
The EU isn't sending a military force into Ukraine, but then neither is the US. The EU does have problematic energy ties to Russia, but that works both ways; just as Europe has an unhealthy dependency on Russian gas, Russia has an even greater dependency on Europe.
Putin's playing a dangerous game with the EU. On the one hand, the EU relies on Russia for about a third of its gas and petroleum. On the other hand, Russia depends on the EU for the majority its energy exports, and virtually all its gas exports. The EU doesn't need to go to war with Russia to cripple it; Russia's economy currently depends on the EU accepting its imports.
Ukraine is a difficult problem to solve. Sure, the EU could march in and reclaim Ukrainian territory without much resistance. The Russian army may have a lot of equipment, but most of it is outdated, and the first Iraq war proved how overwhelming an advantage a technology gap can be. But the EU has also seen what's happened to Iraq and Afghanistan, and knows that the east of Ukraine has strong Russian ties. It doesn't want to find itself in embroiled in a decades-long guerrilla war, which is what would happen if it used force.
Putin knows this, but he also knows that his country's economy is dependent on the EU. He's trying to edge Russia into a better strategic position without provoking the EU into action.
> There is exactly one sovereign state on earth that could single-handedly give the combined forces of Europe a serious fight today
The point is that we Europeans are so divided we can't even name a Foreign Minister of Europe because the Brits once again needed to prove they're special.
Hell, just kick GB out of the European Union and have a MUCH better organized and FVEY-free EU.
I think you are mistaking a small political class within the UK for the population as a whole. The public sentiment in the UK today is heavily anti-EU and the electorate would obviously choose to leave if a vote happened tomorrow.
Whether this would actually be a good idea for either party is a different question, of course. In the short term, it would almost certainly be painful for both sides, but short term politics is not necessarily the priority at this scale.
In any case, it is important not to mistake avoiding a federal system of government for a general policy of xenophobia and isolationism. You can have things like free trade (the original EEC), free movement (Schengen), and shared recognition and defence of fundamental values (ECHR) without the heavy political integration of the EU or the heavy economic integration of the Eurozone. You could have mutual defence agreements similarly.
There are a lot of people in the UK right now who think we and the EU should recognise that our goals are not aligned and go our separate ways amicably, and that we should seek simpler and more narrowly focussed agreements with our European neighbours for mutual benefit, as we would with any other foreign partner.
Your comment is lacking any specific examples or citations so it's essentially an armchair analysis based on what sounds like a simplistic "USA is sucky" opinion.
Where is this "reasonable thought" that a world without superpowers would not devolve back into world wars and mass conflict? What's different this time to prevent that from happening?
Your New York Times article is talking about the personnel count of the US Army -- that has never been the issue with military spending. The real money doesn't go to US soldiers, it goes to defense contractors. Private mercenaries and military weapons manufacturers. That's where the egregious waste is.
I'm not sure why the parent was modded down. It's 'settled theory' in the foreign policy world, though what philwelch lists are significant risks and not certainties.
Also, I would add our obiligation to ensure the flow of energy from the Middle East.
There are many benefits to being a hegemon, but it comes with obligations too.
The thing is despite the gigantic military requirements placed on US, it doesn't have be such a financial disaster only if procurement was done in a sane way. So there's really no one to blame but ourselves.
Let's have that discussion: what are the US's bottom line requirements to maintain the "Pax Americana"? Do we need Carrier Groups to deal with Somali pirates? Do we need 40,000 people in Germany? (I think everyone will accept the deployment in S. Korea...)
Today being behind on military technology by as little as 5 years can be decisive in confrontation. The last decade has brought huge changes in military technology including super and hypersonic missile delivery systems (these can defeat the US's current interception capabilities), THAAD technology, directed energy weapons, new reactive armors, satellite bombing systems, startling new radar arrays, hybrid warships, autonomous drones, practical railguns, missile adhoc networks and intelligent interception, material science bringing in new stealth materials and body armor, satellite kill systems, not to mention advancements in electronic warfare. There is constant pressure on the US, because it is the second largest arms dealer around the world, to constantly build better military equipment. And there is constant pressure to do the same because the US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich.
The Washington Consensus chose 25 years ago to continue the investment of military with a pivot in tactics and to uses its military might in tandem with 'soft power', financial leverage, social disruption, culture export, etc in an attempt to fix its success and the success of its allies with "minimal bloodshed" - but a form of colonialism nonetheless. It will continually sell off old equipment to aid in funding new research and development.
The US is a world empire - and while this can be seen by looking at a map of military locale it is better seen as a Capitalistic one. It uses its host of leverage, import-export bank, 'structural adjustment programs', 'value sharing initiatives' and the like. The US's foreign policy is wrapped up intrinsically in providing energy security to the first world, which means constant interventionism in the Middle East. It also has a huge number of security and military obligations around the world - e.g. right now we're promised to go to nuclear war were there to be an attack on Latvia.
The US has many reasons to be militaristic - its waning economic dominance but continued military commitments and global footprint, its obligations and its own incentives to fix its success during continued globalization. Military contractors feed this fire, yes. They benefit from it, yes. But it is not as simple as military contractors lobbying successfully.
>US's military might has everything to do with the geopolitics that continue to make it rich
I'm sceptical that the military might does that much to make the US rich besides providing basic peace. Obviously things would be screwed if WW3 started.
The US has got rich mostly by trade and enterprise and producing much of the worlds high value stuff. Spending a huge portion of governments revenues on the military rather than things like education, R&D and science has probably been a drag on growth.
For example she provides energy security for Europe (why is the UAE such good friends with us - do we benefit from this relationship?), she backs her commitments with military promises (she can and does negotiate treaties and agreements, even between other countries, that fix things in her favor), her dollar is trusted more because her military is stronger (this investment is crucial), she uses her military to enforce international trade rules that benefit her (more than just 'peace' but international law - but specific international law), her military gives her access to native areas in Latin America and the Pacific that are not hers (Guam, Chile, Phillipines, etc), her military is used as a deterrent that enables her to use other strategies to break nations (she contracts and pays to kindle revolutions around the world that benefit her), she exports her old weapons and systems (a huge US export), she intervenes in nations due to natural, homegrown and installed conflict to fix a stability and peace where US companies and country have the first investment opportunities in natural resource extraction.
The US military also effectively subsidizes the national defense of a large portion of the world, much of which we trade with. It's because of our treaty obligation to defend South Korea that, instead of investing in an arms race with North Korea, they can afford to manufacture cell phones and cars and televisions and trade them to us. Likewise for Japan and the NATO members.
You mean other than the problem where they have nuclear weapons (and of course S.Korea does not), are actively developing more powerful nuclear weapons?
Besides that, who needs an arms race when you have enough artillery to kill millions of people in Seoul in the first inning of a war? North Korea doesn't need to be advanced to decimate South Korea, unfortunately.
The US isn't suffering waning economic dominance. In fact it's gaining economic power right now.
The US Dollar is stronger than it has been in 20 years, the global reserve standard is firmly in place. The Euro and Yen present no threat to that; and the Yuan, a second tier currency, is currently being backed up by the greatest accumulation of debt in world history in China.
Since 2007 the US has added around $3.x trillion to its annual GDP, while Europe has added zero and has failed to climb above the peak before the great recession. The US will hit $18 trillion in GDP in 2015, or over nine times the size of Russia, which used to be its primary superpower competitor. While US GDP has continued to climb, most countries in Europe have been flat for ~7 years (eg Germany's or France's GDP hasn't moved since 2008).
The US share of global GDP hasn't gone down in 35 years, and is still where it was in 1995/96.
(and that's during a time, since 1980, in which both Japan and China came on line as global economic powers - to maintain the US share of GDP, the US had to keep up with China, Brazil, Japan, India and countless other countries that saw economic booms since 1980)
The US _is_ doing better economically than it had been during the great recession and the lead up to it - but when one looks on a longer time horizon and when looks at more than proxy measures in the short term things do not look as well. This is not to say the US is going to go belly up. It is suffering waning economic dominance. The two are not mutually exclusive. Declining dominance means that it is losing its lead and will be overtaken. A sprinter can run faster than any other leg of a race and still be overtaken. That is what we are talking about here.
From all accounts the Renminbi is doing quite well and many allies despite pressure from the US are joining to AIIB, etc. Every criticism of the Renminbi you've put forward applies equally or greater to the dollar.
Europe is not a fair comparison. Nor is Russia (it waned into collapse the same time you start your 'comparisons'). Nor is Japan (can you fairly compare to a lost generation?). These are misleading 20th century comparisons.
Always be careful of charts and data that capture narrow slices and proxy measures - especially when they are not sourced and when the data isn't published alongside methodology. Proxy measures are extremely dangerous. Though it may explain why you feel confident using Japan as a reasonable example?
When we speak of declining dominance, it is in fact the US and its relationship to the stagnating EU, Commonwealth and Japan that informs this. The growth is not in the old world.
By all accounts, bankers, financiers, politicians, advisors - the next half century will be driven economically and politically by the Asia-Pacific. By the same accounts there are significant challenges to the world order set in WWII.
Thus the US's pivot to Asia, to the rise of China and of the Pacific.
We're not talking about scaling out cloud deployments or something here. Building a military takes an incredible amount of lead time. If you don't have a strong standing military force during peacetime, you won't have one during wartime.
Utterly false. Prior to involvement in World War 2, the US had hardly any standing army and rather weak tooling industries (being wiped out by the Great Depression) and yet still managed to field like 2 million troops and vast amounts of weapons for allies in a very short period of time.
The US began the WWII draft over a year before Pearl Harbor, and was manufacturing arms for the Allies months ahead of Pearl Harbor as well. Even a weakened American industrial base was significantly larger than that of any other country in the world at the time (http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm).
World War II was an unusual case, though. Every war since then has been a relatively limited one in the sense that no one on the home front really made any kind of sacrifice or even any substantial contribution to the war effort. In World War II, as much of the country's productive output as possible was dedicated to the war effort. Civilian consumption was strictly rationed, and the population actually went along with this. People gardened and learned to get by with less because every gallon of gasoline they didn't burn, every tire they patched up instead of replacing, every bit of food or cloth or wood or steel that you didn't needlessly consume could be shipped off to the front lines and contribute to victory. Every dollar you saved could be invested in war bonds. There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory.
If you were able to get that level of dedication out of the population again, you could scale an effective military force in very short order the way the US did in WWII. But that just isn't going to happen again for any foreseeable conflict.
That may mean that the population doesn't really support those conflicts. There's a term for the government following the wishes of the population, what is it...
Beating up countries like North Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Serbia, and Iraq doesn't require the same level of effort, and all of those wars were made possible by the large standing military the US had. Without a standing military, we would have had to skip those wars, which would be fine in some cases (Vietnam) and potentially disastrous in others (Iraq 1991, Serbia).
>There was hardly a single American who lived through that war who didn't make sacrifices and materially contribute to victory.
Contrast this with how Americans were told to support Iraq 2 and Afghanistan: "Go shopping."
The best possible policy for peace-loving American's to adopt would be a "no war without conscription" law. This seems counterintuitive, but it is my believe that when Senators' and Presidents' and CEOs' sons lives are on the line, they'll think twice before using force. As it stands, to them it's like risking the lives of a few hundred thousand Wal-Mart employees.
Members of the all-volunteer military are significantly more likely to come from high-income neighborhoods than from low-income neighborhoods. Only 11 percent of enlisted recruits in 2007 came from the poorest one-fifth (quintile) of neighborhoods, while 25 percent came from the wealthiest quintile. These trends are even more pronounced in the Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program, in which 40 percent of enrollees come from the wealthiest neighborhoods-a number that has increased substantially over the past four years. (...) American soldiers are more educated than their peers. A little more than 1 percent of enlisted personnel lack a high school degree, compared to 21 percent of men 18-24 years old, and 95 percent of officer accessions have at least a bachelor's degree.
Unfortunately Heritage has become a propaganda outlet, paid for by people like the Koch's. That doesn't make their information right or wrong, just not useful for determining facts (IMHO).
In the post WW2 era though, the increases in firepower and mobility made this point moot. A well orchestrated and timed advance could conquer a nation in days, nuclear weapons not withstanding. the Army's Active Defence doctrine post WW2 reflected this, recgonizing that in the era, a war would be won or lost in the first few battles.
Eisenhower reflected upon this in his Farewell Address. The warning regarding the "Military-Industrial Complex" was placed in the context that such a construct was necessary, but needed to be kept in check:
"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."
I think it's worth quoting a bit more of that speech:
Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
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.
And because the US wasn't ready the Japanese were free to run wild in the Pacific for six months, taking many islands that had to be retaken at terrible costs to combatants, civilians and treasuries.
I don't know how this was downvoted - it's completely true. Read any bio of Eisenhower. Eisenhower was involved in big experiments just to see if men and materiel could even be moved across country in the US by wheeled vehicles.
Perhaps it was the tone, "utterly false". When I see writing like that, I generally stop reading; often what follows is another hyperbolic Internet rant and I've seen enough of them for my lifetime.
Interestingly, the score for my comment has fluctuated back and forth between +6 to -2. Clearly something touched a chord, which is strange because a) WW2 is a valid counter-example to the claim that you need a huge standing army to fight and win wars, and b) the extent of my "tone" was a single word, "utterly".
May all the 'hyperbolic internet rants' limit themselves to a single word.
Designs for the US's more advanced fighters, like the P-38, P-47, and P-51, were begun in 1937-39. They were not initially available when the US entered the war.
The M4 Sherman tank design began about 1940, although it followed closely on US light and medium tank designs from 1935.
If by "prior to involvement," you mean 3 or 4 years prior, you're probably right. Most of the design and development work was done to supply the British well before 1941.
Further, the Great Depression not withstanding, and certainly by 1941, the US had the strongest economy in the world.
This is really driven by "up or out" ( also called "up and out") personnel management in the military. You're required to charge rents back to your employer for business relationships outside the military.
It's all part of the general pattern of careerism. It's in sharper relief in military contracting because there's simply more & different information about it. It is also damaging in the private sector.
But at the same time, I think that's a pretty untenable situation. The military needs to do something to balance the career mobility of their officers with the ethical hazards of the current system. Without some rules to prevent the scenarios that have the most potential for abuse, the situation is not unlike the flow of Congress members into lobbying. Except we don't elect military officers.
It's a tough balance. Part of the promise of the military's recruiting is that you'll advance your career. They should fulfill that promise. At the same time, they need to make sure that the ways in which they fulfill that promise don't incentivize poor judgment on behalf of the public interest.