During the Vietnam War, one of the peace movement’s more sardonic
slogans was: “War is good business. Invest your son.”
In recent years, some eminent pundits and top government officials
have become brazen about praising war as a good investment.
Thomas Friedman’s 1999 book “The Lexus and the Olive Tree” summed up
a key function of the USA’s high-tech arsenal. “The hidden hand of
the market will never work without a hidden fist,” he wrote.
“McDonald’s cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer
of the U.S. Air Force F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world
safe for Silicon Valley’s technologies to flourish is called the U.S.
Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.”
On Sept. 12, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell spoke this way as
he defended the U.S. military occupation of Iraq: “Since the United
States and its coalition partners have invested a great deal of
political capital, as well as financial resources, as well as the
lives of our young men and women -- and we have a large force there
now -- we can’t be expected to suddenly just step aside.” He was
voicing the terminology and logic of a major capitalist investor.
And so, it was fitting when the New York Times reported days ago that
Powell will soon be (in the words of the headline) “Taking a Role in
Venture Capitalism.” The article explained that Powell is becoming a
partner in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a renowned Silicon
Valley venture firm: “Mr. Powell acknowledged in an interview Tuesday
that he has had any number of tempting job offers since leaving the
State Department in January, but that the chance to work as a venture
capitalist at Kleiner Perkins seemed too enticing to turn down.”
Writ large, the balance-sheet outlook of venture capitalism is being
widely applied to the current war in Iraq -- even while defenders of
the war are apt to indignantly reject any claim that it’s driven by
zeal for massive profits. But let’s take the corporate firms at their
own words.
Last year, I went through the latest annual reports from some
American firms with Pentagon contracts. Those reports acknowledged,
as a matter of fact, the basic corporate reliance on the warfare
state.
Orbit International Corp., a small business making high-tech products
for use by the U.S. Navy, Air Force, Army, and Marines, had increased
its net sales by nearly $2.4 million during the previous two years,
to about $17.1 million -- and the war future was bright. “Looking
ahead,” CEO Dennis Sunshine reported, “Orbit’s Electronics and Power
Unit Segments expect to continue to benefit from the expanding
military/defense and homeland security marketplace.” In its yearly
report to federal regulators, Orbit International acknowledged: “We
are heavily dependent upon military spending as a source of revenues
and income. Accordingly, any substantial future reductions in overall
military spending by the U.S. government could have a material
adverse effect on our sales and earnings.”
A much larger corporation, Engineered Support Systems, Inc., had
quadrupled its net revenues between 1999 and 2003, when they reached
$572.7 million. For the report covering 2003, the firm’s top officers
signed a statement that declared: “As we have always said, rapid
deployment of our armed forces drives our business.” The company’s
president, Jerry Potthoff, assured investors: “Our nation’s military
is deployed in over 130 countries, so our products and personnel are
deployed, as well. As long as America remains the world’s policeman,
our products and services will help them complete their missions.”
The gigantic Northrop Grumman firm, while noting that its revenues
totaled $26.2 billion in 2003, boasted: “In terms of the portfolio,
Northrop Grumman is situated in the ‘sweet spot’ of U.S. defense and
national security spending.”
War. How sweet it can be.
_______________________________________
This article is adapted from Norman Solomon’s new book “War Made Easy: How
Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death.” For information, go to:
www.WarMadeEasy.com
