The idea that a
symbiotic relationship exists between the
American military and the private,
commercial industry which produces its
weapons was for years a popular
liberal explanation for the
machinations of
foreign policy.
Republican presidents, like
Ronald Reagan, were accused of determining
America's
international behavior by calculating which course of action would benefit
companies like
Lockheed-Martin most. The profits generated by
America's involvement in
wars and
arms races, the theory posits, were then funneled into the pockets of
policy-makers, thus
perpetuating the relationship.
Whatever the idea's allure as an X-Files caliber conspiracy theory, it is utterly untenable, factually and conceptually; even if there weren't overwhelming documentary evidence demonstrating that foreign policy is determined by a mixture of pragmatic power politics and idealism, as well as by internal popular pressure, there would still remain the fact that, economically, war is not profitable; for every post-WWII booms, there are post-WWI depressions. In addition, America spends fairly consistently on defense, and the companies producing tanks, planes, ships, guns, and so on are not struggling for profitability.
The sort of reductive logic responsible for this theory, which suggests that there are fat-cat white men who think nothing of starting a war to make extra money (the lynchpin of conspiracy theory, and not true), has also produced the more contemporary, and quite popular fantasy of a Prison-Industrial Complex.