Regardless of the existence or

nature of perceived threats

to US national security,

the military budget and technological research

and production complex form a mainstay

of the imperial economy,

pumping life into the entire capitalist machine

Contrary to the claims of free market economy pundits,

that industrial, scientific and technological

development proceeds apace without

the intervention of the state, the state,

in fact, puts its full weight behind the research,

development and production infrastructure

This is one of the factors that have given the US

an edge over other countries in many areas

What concerns us here is that this economic dynamic may be instrumental in, if not exactly actively propelling the US into, military conflicts through the lobbies that represent the constituent members of the military-research-industrial complex.

At least in exacerbating international tensions, magnifying threats and generally working to create a climate conducive to more profitable activity.

The American military-economic establishment has its own representatives, journalists, organisations and staffers in Washington.

I would venture that there's some unspoken law that tells them to exaggerate the strength of the enemy and to fuel tensions and, when things begin to appear to spiral out of control, to present events as some form of conspiracy.

At any rate, I have no doubt that Bush's statements regarding the forthcoming ability of Iranian missiles to strike targets in the US and the spectre of a third world war should Iran obtain a nuclear bomb, and Rice's remarks that Iran now presents the greatest danger to American national security, will go a long way towards satisfying the US military-economic establishment's craving for humungous budgetary allocations.

A Pentagon general returning to work today after 20 years of retirement would be in for a surprise.

Two decades ago his country had just emerged victorious over the international communist order after some 40-odd years of political, cultural, economic and intelligence warfare, which erupted in countless regional conflicts, revolutions and coups in various areas of the globe, and in which his agency had invested all its energies and resources.

So he would have set off into his golden years confident that America was safer and more secure now that it had bested what Ronald Reagan had dubbed the "Evil Empire".

His confidence would have been fortified by the fact that the last arms appropriations bill that president had submitted to Congress amounted to a half a trillion dollars in today's terms, the effect of which was to lure the shattered Soviet economy into another arms race.

Imagine that retired general's surprise, 20 years down the line after his government laid to rest that "mortal enemy to freedom and the American way of life", that his president, today, in 2008, has asked Congress to approve a military budget for this era of peace equivalent in actual terms to the size of the 1987 budget, which is to say in the area of $505 billion.

America's Military-Industrial Complex:

Socialism Masquerading As Capitalism [Original]

The US military budget is equivalent to all the other military budgets in the world put together and five times larger than the combined military budgets of the countries the US has identified as its potential enemies.

Now, the sceptic may argue that the foregoing comparison is unfair because it fails to take into account the need for exceptional costs to cover the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

To this one can answer, firstly, that Iraq and Afghanistan are no "exceptions". Any 80-year-old in America would be hard put to recall a time when his country was not either at war or preparing for war.

Contrary to the first 150 years of US history, the last 80 is an unbroken record of moving from one conflict or military intervention to the next in the course of what might be described as the unfolding emergence of the American Empire we see today.

Secondly, the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions are funded through supplementary spending bills outside the federal budget.

If you added the $142 billion funnelled into those wars to the 2008 defence appropriation bill you'd arrive at $650 billion, or 25 per cent more than the US's military budget for 1968, at the height of the Cold War and the arms race and at a time when the US was involved in the fiercest military intervention in its history, the war in Vietnam.

Certainly American defence budgeting is shaped by other motives apart from the need to fund the army and the country's current wars.

One powerful incentive is scientific and technological research and development, especially in areas that are transferable between the military and civilian industries, and without the outlays for which major US firms would not be able to stay afloat in the capitalist struggle for survival.

Regardless of the existence or nature of perceived threats to US national security, the military budget and technological research and production complex form a mainstay of the imperial economy.

It creates jobs, develops civil industries and generally pumps life into the entire machine.

In other words, contrary to the claims of free market economy pundits, that industrial, scientific and technological development proceeds apace without the intervention of the state, the state, in fact, puts its full weight behind the research, development and production infrastructure. This is one of the factors that have given the US an edge over other countries in many areas.

The American military budget doesn't just fund research into antiballistic missile shields, battle related psychological shock and stress syndromes, not to mention the development of the state propaganda and media machine.

With the development of cyber command technology, sophisticated cybernetics research has received such an enormous chunk of defence spending outlays that US cities are vying with one another to serve as bases for research centres and headquarters.

These are dedicated to protecting the computer and data networks belonging to government agencies, banks and even the Pentagon from hackers and viruses, which are purportedly to become the next major weapons of "global terrorism" against the West.

As is the case with all major technological leaps, the consequences of investment into cybernetics research and development are certain to bring both benefits and banes to future generations.

What concerns us here is that this economic dynamic may be instrumental in, if not exactly actively propelling the US into, military conflicts through the lobbies that represent the constituent members of the military-research-industrial complex.

At least in exacerbating international tensions, magnifying threats and generally working to create a climate conducive to more profitable activity.

The American military-economic establishment has its own representatives, journalists, organisations and staffers in Washington.

I would venture that there's some unspoken law that tells them to exaggerate the strength of the enemy and to fuel tensions and, when things begin to appear to spiral out of control, to present events as some form of conspiracy.

At any rate, I have no doubt that Bush's statements regarding the forthcoming ability of Iranian missiles to strike targets in the US and the spectre of a third world war should Iran obtain a nuclear bomb, and Rice's remarks that Iran now presents the greatest danger to American national security, will go a long way towards satisfying the US military-economic establishment's craving for humungous budgetary allocations.