Zelenskyy and the U.S. military-industrial complex
OPINION:
Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s recent visit to Washington to secure further financial aid from Congress garnered notable criticism from the American public. The justifiable criticism was twofold. First, the plea for more taxpayer dollars magnified the growing unease among many Americans over how much the U.S. has spent on this war without a clear plan for ending it.
Mr. Zelenskyy compounded the criticism by also meeting with leaders of top U.S. defense contractors, which exposed an emerging issue for the United States: Our national security policy is being unduly influenced by the interests of the military-industrial complex.
The U.S. needs a strong defense industrial base to deter our nation’s adversaries and when necessary provide the resources to fight and win our nation’s wars. The U.S. defense industrial base is also vital to preserving national security as it ensures that our country has the innovation and resources necessary to maintain the most powerful and advanced military force in the world.
At the same time, the U.S. has had a troublesome history with the defense industrial base improperly influencing U.S. policy.
President Dwight Eisenhower famously raised awareness of this phenomenon in his 1961 farewell address, in which he warned of the “unwarranted influence” that the military-industrial complex could have on U.S. foreign policy.
Eisenhower — who led the Allied invasion of Western Europe and Normandy in World War II — recognized the importance of maintaining a strong military and defense industrial base. But he also realized that this same military complex, if left unchecked, could needlessly bring America into new wars while eroding Americans’ liberties by creating a security state at home.
Eisenhower also feared that the growing nexus between the arms industry and the military would form a powerful political interest group that could drive our nation’s handling of foreign conflicts, in which military engagement was promoted as the first and primary course of action in nation-state conflicts, rather than diplomatic, political or economic options.
Mr. Zelenskyy’s recent meeting with U.S. defense contractors brought Eisenhower’s warning of the “permanent armaments industry” promoting military engagement over alternative statecraft tools to the forefront.
Both the Biden administration and Mr. Zelenskyy remain committed to military engagement in Ukraine without equally prioritizing viable diplomatic channels to bring the war to an end. Mr. Zelenskyy, for example, has imposed a ban on any Russia-Ukraine peace talks if they include Russian ruler Vladimir Putin.
In addition, the Biden administration has upheld a policy of allowing Ukraine to determine the conditions in which negotiations are brought about through its mantra of “nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine” in reference to Russia-Ukraine negotiations.
President Biden has yet to have a single meeting with Mr. Putin since Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022.
One of the realities that cannot be ignored in this push to financially support Ukraine is that the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan significantly reduced defense contractors’ profits. According to Brown University, between one-third and one-half of the Pentagon’s $14 trillion Afghanistan spending went to U.S. defense contracting corporations.
The proxy war in Ukraine, however, not only reignited these defense contracting revenue but also spurred global military spending, which was raised to a historic $2.24 trillion after Russia invaded.
Concerning the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower stated: “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Raising these concerns and maintaining awareness of the defense industry is not contrarian to supporting a strong military.
For example, the Trump administration prioritized building and maintaining the world’s most powerful military force. At the same time, then-President Donald Trump directly challenged the U.S. war complex with his America First approach to national security, which challenged the idea that the U.S. should wage new wars in response to nation-state conflicts without first exhausting diplomatic, economic and political levers of power and direct engagement with leaders.
Mr. Trump also vocally challenged the military-industrial complex, which he viewed as an enabler in bringing the country into endless wars.
Challenging the military-industrial complex is not incompatible with supporting a strong military. It is necessary to sustain our military readiness and credible deterrence as it prevents sending America’s finite military resources abroad to endless wars.
While the war in Ukraine has been a vital profit center for U.S. defense contractors, continual military shipments to Ukraine from the U.S. have also greatly reduced our critical munition and defense equipment stockpiles as the U.S. has been sending Ukraine military equipment at faster rates than we are able to replace them.
As a result, the Pentagon announced that U.S. aid to Ukraine had overwhelmed our “drawdown” account, and the U.S. must, therefore, make “tough choices” on whether to continue to support Ukraine or America’s own military readiness.
The rising defense complex surrounding the war in Ukraine merits accountability, particularly from Congress and ultimately the commander in chief, on whether the current policy approach by the U.S. on Ukraine is advancing U.S. interests and whether a better America First approach of making sure all options of diplomatic routes have been exhausted in a war whose Ukrainian and Russian casualties are nearing 500,000.
• Keith Kellogg is a former national security adviser in the Trump administration and was chief of staff of the National Security Council. A retired Army lieutenant general with numerous combat deployments, he commanded the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division and is now co-chair of the Center for American Security at the America First Policy Institute. Gloria McDonald serves as senior policy analyst at the America First Policy Institute at the Center for American Security. She holds a master’s degree in global security from Johns Hopkins University.
