I am writing an essay on the military-industrial complex. From my research, it appears to me that the absolute earliest point you can start at in an analysis of the military-industrial complex is with pre-WWI, when the War Industries Board was formed and staffed with corporate leaders, who were tasked with regulating and mobilizing the wartime economy. With this understanding, my thesis spans the rise of transnational railroad corporations, prevailing interpretations of Supreme Court rulings on corporate personhood, the pre-WWI process of economic mobilization, the actions of the Federal Reserve surrounding the Great Depression*, the Lockheed Martin bailout** and bribery scandals of the 70s, and finally the influence of Ronald Reagan's time and role at General Electric on his future policy-making.
The sources I am using most heavily include:
Paul A. C. Koistinen, The “Industrial-Military Complex” in Historical Perspective: World War I.
Education of Ronald Reagan : The General Electric Years and the Untold Story of his Conversion to Conservatism
William D. Hartung, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-industrial Complex
Tom Hayden and Marc Pilisuk, Is There A Military Industrial Complex Which Prevents Peace?: Consensus and Countervailing Power in Pluralistic Systems
William D. Hartung, Prophets of War: Lockheed Martin and the Making of the Military-industrial Complex
Walter Adams, The Military Industrial Complex - A Market Structure Analysis
David Tal, Eisenhower’s Disarmament Dilemma: From Chance for Peace to Open Skies Proposal, (Diplomacy & Statecraft
I guess my question is: am I on the right track here? Am I fundamentally missing something in this topic? Please note - while this is a post about an essay, I believe it is also a post ripe for discussion on a topic that is extremely complex and important. I personally feel I have a great understanding of the topic and have put a lot of research into this, but it is possible that someone is even more knowledgeable and can explain this to me even better. After all, even when we know a lot there is always more to learn.
Looking forward to reading your responses!
*might not include this- basically would be citing Shughart/Tollison's (1988) thesis that the "restrictive monetary policy of the Fed... was based on rational, self-interested behaviour" and that they guided the world into a depression for the "health" of the stake member banks in the Fed
** the first government bailout of its kind, the 'precedent' for future auto and bank bailouts
I think the most important thing you need to do first is define the Military-Industrial complex. In its literal form, the term Military/Industrial simply demonstrates a connection between the armed forces and the industrial entities who have historically provided those arms.
Without a tighter definition, the MIC goes back to the roots of industrialized arms production. For almost its entire history, the US Army has relied, to some extent, on private contractors who supply the necessary materiel of war. The Navy, to give but one example, utilized a mix of private shipyards and Navy owned shipyards to build hulls. During the Civil War, civilian designers produced plans for ships, whose hulls were built by private contractors. All this is to say, if you talk about the MIC in its entirety, and open up that huge can-of-worms, you have to deal with a lot more than you might expect. So what would you say the MIC exactly is, and in what way does your paper explore that definition of the MIC?
Also, you are tackling a pretty huge timeline here, from 1917 to today, in a lot of ways. What are you writing this paper on, because that seems to be a pretty huge topic. Now depending on what level you are, that might be okay (Im not your prof), but its easier to say a little thing, and prove it solidly, than to say a big thing and stretch your research thin, especially if this is due in May. Ive made that mistake. Not only that, but it seems like youre spanning topics when you talk about how the Lockheed scandal was the first precedent for the 2009 bailout. Firstly, I would reject that conclusion, and instead argue that Hoover and Roosevelt did more to set a precedent than any Lockheed bailout. Second, to prove yourself right youd have to dip your toe into so much other stuff that that could make a good Honors, Master, or PhD thesis (dissertation). So Id really pare it down and just focus on the MIC, and the MIC in a time and place of your choosing.
Remember what Guderian said, "You hit somebody with your fist and not with your fingers spread." You can attack this topic (the MIC) any way youd like. You can construct your argument any way you like. My advice would be to concentrate on your sources, the period they cover, and really push that as far as you can. Dont spread yourself out over period of 100 years, just to try and make a sweeping argument you cant support.
Can you provide a link to where you will publish the essay?