Defense Spending and the Military-Industrial Complex
Levin-Waldman (2012, pp. 186-89) analyzes how “iron triangles” link Congress, the bureaucracy, and interest groups in self-serving relationships that influence policy in ways that are contrary to the public interest. In 1961, at the end of President Eisenhower’s second term, he gave a farewell address to the nation in which he warned of the dangers of a “military-industrial complex.” Many commentators today see the military-industrial complex as an example of an iron triangle that bloats the defense budget and distorts national priorities. Not everyone would accept this analysis, however, especially defense “hawks” in Congress, the military bureaucracies, and defense industries.
Before writing your initial post, review the assigned resources. To easily access the resources from the Ashford University Library, please see the table located in the Course Materials section.
In your initial post of at least 200-250 words, briefly explain the iron triangle model of policy-making involving Congress, the bureaucracy, and interest groups. Analyze information about relationships among Congress, the military bureaucracies, and defense industries. Draw your own conclusion, and support it with facts and with persuasive reasoning, about the impact of these relationships on defense spending. Evaluate the accuracy of the iron triangle model as a basis for understanding the process of making defense spending policy.
Fully respond to all parts of the question. Write in your own words. Support your position with APA citations to two or more of the assigned resources required for this discussion. Please be sure that you demonstrate understanding of these resources, integrate them into your argument, and cite them properly.
By Day 7, respond to at least two of your classmates’ initial posts. Your peer responses each must be at least 75 words. They must demonstrate critical thinking (e.g., ask a relevant question about your peer’s post while explaining why your question is significant, or state a perspective that contrasts with your peer’s while explaining or justifying your position).