Military/Industrial Complex

[Bob Forsythe]

Something I found interesting. Susan Eisenhower, Ike's Granddaughter was on Bill Maher Friday night and in a discussion about the F-22 (linking it back to Josh's thread on the old political forum), that the original draft of the speech referred to the Military/Industrial/Congressional complex. Ike apparently changed it because he felt he had good relations with the Democratically controlled Congress and didn't want to look like he was whacking them as he was going out of office.

I found that to be a very interesting and very insightful comment, because Congress is at least as guilty, if not more so, than the military. Hell, at least the military tries to cut weapons platforms and bases as they look at efficiencies. Industry looks at profits and spends a fortune on lobbyists and campaign contributions and Congress, with their two year terms, looks at making sure they can claim they've saved jobs and brought jobs to their districts. Bipartisan corruption at its finest.

=Bob

[aztecwin]

I like that comment. Congress is really the only part of the problem that makes it uncontrollable for the most part.

[Bob Forsythe]

Jul 27, 2009 13:14:18 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I like that comment. Congress is really the only part of the problem that makes it uncontrollable for the most part.

Well, let's not leave the lobbyists, many of whom are retired military, out of the equation. After all, it's the defense industry lobbyists who woo the members of Congress with platforms that will give them the opportunity to tell their constituents that they're saving or creating jobs for their district.

=Bob

[William L. Rupp]

We do indeed live in an imperfect world. One result of that is that politics colors everything. My standard position is that the fewer things that are controlled by the government the better since that means fewer issues involving spending of tax dollars will be based on political considerations.

However, national defense is one of those things that must be done by the national government, so the best we can do is hope that the administration in power will do its best to make procurement of weapons systems on practical and strategic grounds rather than basing those decisions on which defense plant is in whose district or state.

Since the Pentagon was against the F-22 I would have to say that the Obama administration merits some praise in this case. (I'll withhold overall judgment of Obama in the defense area until I see what his overall plans are. If he thinks we can get along with perhaps two-thirds the number of ships that we now have, for instance, when we really have too few currently, I will be disappointed.)

AzWm

[temeculaaztec]

Ah yes, the Iron Triangle at work....the unholy BI-PARTISAN alliance between Congressional committees, Interest Groups (lobbyists), and the Bureaucracy.

Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this view an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. (For these purposes, politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a government bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement.)

Much of what some see as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to serve.
---Wikipedia

[Bob Forsythe]

Jul 28, 2009 7:46:57 GMT -8 temeculaaztec said:

Ah yes, the Iron Triangle at work....the unholy BI-PARTISAN alliance between Congressional committees, Interest Groups (lobbyists), and the Bureaucracy.

Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this view an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. (For these purposes, politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a government bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement.)

Much of what some see as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to serve.
---Wikipedia

That's one view of bureaucracy. I'm not sure I completely agree with it, though. In particular the statement that alliances are formed between an agency and its constituency. I think "alliance" is too strong a word. What would be more accurate is that over a certain period of time the regulators identify more with those they regulate than they do with the citizenry because much of the citizenry doesn't understand the regulation process. In other words, it's not formal, which the term alliance suggests is the case.

=Bob

[temeculaaztec]

Alliances do not have to be formal. Maybe you prefer the word "relationship" over alliance? Either way. This is one view of "Iron Triangles," not the "bureaucracy" alone. The bureaucracy is just one part of the Iron Triangle.

(This was the topic of one essay (free-response) of a recent Advanced Placement Government/Politics Exam for my students.)

[Bob Forsythe]

Jul 28, 2009 9:58:30 GMT -8 temeculaaztec said:

Alliances do not have to be formal. Maybe you prefer the word "relationship" over alliance? Either way. This is one view of "Iron Triangles," not the "bureaucracy" alone. The bureaucracy is just one part of the Iron Triangle.

(This was the topic of one essay (free-response) of a recent Advanced Placement Government/Politics Exam for my students.)

I'm not disagreeing with your Iron Triangle concept, but I prefer the word "identification" to alliance or relationship. The problem, perhaps, is that when I think in terms of "systems", I may have a different view than others due to my thesis chair (which is not to claim any sort of superiority, just a comment on how I think). We do not live in a Bureaucratic System, but rather a Reconciliation System. The former, which Russia would be an example of, use the bureaucracy to set top-down policy with regard mostly given to the power of the bureaucracy. The latter mediates between competing demands.

That's the "everything being equal" view and obviously doesn't always work. But not every bureaucracy in this country looks constantly at expanding its kingdom, although many of them do. A lot of that expansion, however, comes from legislative mandates rather than the bureaucracy suggesting new ways to expand. But then again, some bureaucracies do suggest legislation in order to expand. "Cadillac Desert" shows that quite well as ACOE got into dam building for "flood control" because it didn't want to hand over all authority on dam building to the Department of Reclamation, which was building dams for irrigation in places where crops were never meant to be grown (Great Basin in particular).

However, having written all that, I do applaud you for requiring that on an AP final. It's one of the fundamentals of poli sci that one has to understand the forms that governmental structure take and it looks like you're doing a good job of teaching your students that understanding. Since I've never taught, I get to have a more esoteric view of it all.

=Bob

[temeculaaztec]

Fair enough. I think you might appreciate some of the thoughtful examples provided by my students. I really believe that some of it did sink in.

I have a former student who worked as an Intern for Al Gore and also was an assistant campaign manager for him. Lately he has been a staff member of a Senator. He came and lectured on "Iron Triangles" to my students. He offered a fascinating inside analysis. He says the Triangles exist , are informal, yet very real and hard to penetrate unless you belong to one of the three elite groups.

[AztecBill]

In the same speech he said:

The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

What he worried about is happening. The Federal Government has spent over $79 billion in shaping the results of AGW research. Although he said the two things are opposite they can indeed occur together in a feedback loop, as we are experiencing now.

[Deleted]

Jul 27, 2009 16:31:04 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Jul 27, 2009 13:14:18 GMT -8 aztecwin said:

I like that comment. Congress is really the only part of the problem that makes it uncontrollable for the most part.

Well, let's not leave the lobbyists, many of whom are retired military, out of the equation. After all, it's the defense industry lobbyists who woo the members of Congress with platforms that will give them the opportunity to tell their constituents that they're saving or creating jobs for their district.

=Bob

That's not the way programs are created. It almost never happens that a defense contractor goes to the government and says "we have this really neat thing to sell you guys". The way thing usually work is that the services identify a need, float what's called an RFI (request for information) to the industry and the industry responds with potential approaches in how they think best to fill the need. That's the genesis of almost all programs.

Where things get sticky and political is after the government decides to spend the money and turn an idea into an actual program. It's at that point where most programs go off the rails and decisions start being made not necessarily on the best approach but rather on how much money and how many jobs will be brought to which congressional district.

[Bob Forsythe]

Jul 30, 2009 8:29:48 GMT -8 afan said:

Jul 27, 2009 16:31:04 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Well, let's not leave the lobbyists, many of whom are retired military, out of the equation. After all, it's the defense industry lobbyists who woo the members of Congress with platforms that will give them the opportunity to tell their constituents that they're saving or creating jobs for their district.

=Bob

That's not the way programs are created. It almost never happens that a defense contractor goes to the government and says "we have this really neat thing to sell you guys". The way thing usually work is that the services identify a need, float what's called an RFI (request for information) to the industry and the industry responds with potential approaches in how they think best to fill the need. That's the genesis of almost all programs.

Where things get sticky and political is after the government decides to spend the money and turn an idea into an actual program. It's at that point where most programs go off the rails and decisions start being made not necessarily on the best approach but rather on how much money and how many jobs will be brought to which congressional district.

I certainly understand the role of Congress in this, given that the Members want to bring and keep jobs in their districts. But I would have to be an idiot to not recognize how much money the defense industry lobbyists spend in order to keep Members on their side.

And let's get real here. Although it was a rather paltry sum compared to other pork, the quite ridiculous program that Hunter dumped 60 million or so into for that stupid plane that the Pentagon stated over and over it didn't want but Hunter kept getting earmarks for is a perfect example of the problem.

I'm not attacking Republicans (or the military, in particular) on this. It's bi-partisan pork and it's bull$#!+. I will, however, suggest that retired military gets a ton of jobs with defense contractors for the simple reason that they can claim "expertise" while they lobby.

I really don't think anyone can argue against this:

www.startribune.com/business/51694522.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr

but feel free to try.

=Bob

Edit: Damn, tried to do a Tiny URL and it didn't work.

[aztecwin]

Jul 30, 2009 18:18:12 GMT -8 Bob Forsythe said:

Jul 30, 2009 8:29:48 GMT -8 afan said:

That's not the way programs are created. It almost never happens that a defense contractor goes to the government and says "we have this really neat thing to sell you guys". The way thing usually work is that the services identify a need, float what's called an RFI (request for information) to the industry and the industry responds with potential approaches in how they think best to fill the need. That's the genesis of almost all programs.

Where things get sticky and political is after the government decides to spend the money and turn an idea into an actual program. It's at that point where most programs go off the rails and decisions start being made not necessarily on the best approach but rather on how much money and how many jobs will be brought to which congressional district.

I certainly understand the role of Congress in this, given that the Members want to bring and keep jobs in their districts. But I would have to be an idiot to not recognize how much money the defense industry lobbyists spend in order to keep Members on their side.

And let's get real here. Although it was a rather paltry sum compared to other pork, the quite ridiculous program that Hunter dumped 60 million or so into for that stupid plane that the Pentagon stated over and over it didn't want but Hunter kept getting earmarks for is a perfect example of the problem.

I'm not attacking Republicans (or the military, in particular) on this. It's bi-partisan pork and it's bull$#!+. I will, however, suggest that retired military gets a ton of jobs with defense contractors for the simple reason that they can claim "expertise" while they lobby.

I really don't think anyone can argue against this:

www.startribune.com/business/51694522.html?elr=KArks:DCiU1OiP:DiiUiacyKUnciaec8O7EyUr

but feel free to try.

=Bob

Edit: Damn, tried to do a Tiny URL and it didn't work.

You have to know how.

starturl.com/bobcantdoit

[aztecwin]

I don't have time to look now, but were not Hunters earmarks for "Predetors"? Got to run for an early tee time.