Friends, in 1945, when the last bomb of World War II was dropped, America faced a new problem. So many factories had been built for tanks and bombers—what to do with them now? The answer was to find new customers. They found Korea, then Vietnam, then Afghanistan, and kept expanding their customer base. Today, America's biggest export is war.
But how does this business work?
After World War II, American factories needed new customers. The USSR emerged like a red ghost and became the perfect villain. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Iran’s elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, just because he made the mistake of nationalizing Iran's oil. So, under the banner of democracy, they protected oil companies, orchestrated a coup, and sold weapons to both sides. This was the business plan of the Cold War—create a villain (USSR, "Our Satan"), sell weapons to allies, supply NATO with tanks (1,000 were gifted as a “friendship discount”), and make profits. At that time, U.S. weapons manufacturer General Dynamics saw its revenue skyrocket by 400%.
In the 1950s, Americans were made to fear that communists would sneak into their homes and drink their vodka. But was the USSR really that dangerous? After the Soviet collapse in 1991, the CIA admitted that the USSR’s economy was weaker than Italy’s. But by then, fear had already been sold. Lockheed’s CEO even joked that the USSR should have won an Oscar for their role.
In 1964, the U.S. Navy claimed that Vietnam attacked its ships. But did it really happen? In 2005, the NSA admitted that the attack never took place. Still, Congress approved the war—why? Because Bell Helicopters had an order for 5,000 helicopters. And we all believed this was a fight against communism.
Then came September 11, 2001, and the world changed. But did you know that on September 12, 2001, Lockheed Martin’s stock rose by 30%? The War on Terror had begun, and a new customer base was found: fearful Americans.
In 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq to bring democracy. But later, the CIA's own informant, “Curveball,” admitted that he lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction. The cost of this democracy? $8 trillion, according to a Harvard study. The human cost? 45,000 U.S. soldiers dead, over 300,000 Iraqis killed. And the winner? Defense companies like Halliburton, which received no-bid contracts.
If $8 trillion had been used to forgive student loans, each U.S. engineer could have received $1 million. But Lockheed shareholders and U.S. elites preferred private jets. Today, 70% of America’s arms exports go to conflict zones—profit from war where it exists and create war where it doesn’t.
In Africa’s Sahel region (Mali, Niger), the U.S. sold $200 million worth of weapons to "fight terrorism," but by 2023, Al-Qaeda’s fighters had increased by 300%. What went wrong? According to a U.N. report, U.S. drones killed 90% civilians. These deaths radicalized more people, leading to an endless business loop.
The Democratic Republic of Congo has 70% of the world’s cobalt, used in Tesla batteries, yet 40,000 children work in the mines. Elon Musk says he doesn’t support child labor, but in 2023, Tesla’s cobalt supplier, Glencore, was exposed for child labor violations.
Why is all of this dangerous for the world?
Let’s understand it through a case study: the Iraq War. The 2003 invasion of Iraq was a prime example of war as a business model. The world was told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and global fear was manipulated. But in reality, no such weapons were found, and Saddam had no such plans.
After 9/11, the entire U.S. was in shock. According to Naomi Klein’s "Shock Doctrine," the trauma of 9/11 became an excuse to expand the war economy. The real goal of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars wasn’t to establish democracy but to keep the U.S. defense industry profitable.
Al-Qaeda, which was based in Afghanistan, carried out the 9/11 attacks, but a memo from the Pentagon instructed intelligence officials to shift focus from Al-Qaeda to Iraq. Even intelligence officers were confused—what did Iraq have to do with Afghanistan? But Paul Wolfowitz, one of the key planners, kept pushing for war.
After 9/11, President Bush and his advisors met at Camp David to plan a strike on Afghanistan. During the meeting, Wolfowitz suddenly said, “9/11 was such a sophisticated attack, Al-Qaeda couldn’t have done it alone—Saddam Hussein must have helped them.” He even called Saddam "the head of the snake" of international terrorism.
Was Saddam really behind global terrorism? No. But Wolfowitz wasn’t going to stop. Later, during a break, he privately pitched his plan to Bush, pointing out that Iraq's northern Kurdish population hated Saddam and that the south had valuable oil fields. He argued that the U.S. could easily control these areas and reduce Saddam’s power to just Baghdad. Bush, a former Texas oilman, saw the opportunity.
After convincing Bush, they had to convince the American public. The media kept repeating the narrative that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Fear was instilled. In March 2003, the U.S. invaded Iraq, removed Saddam, and thought they would control the oil fields while turning Iraq into a model democracy. But instead, Iraq fell into sectarian violence between Shia and Sunni groups.
Over 10,000 U.S. soldiers and more than 200,000 Iraqis have died. Over $1 trillion has been spent. America thought removing Saddam would stabilize Iraq, but instead, a power vacuum allowed terrorist groups like ISIS to rise.
Even today, people ask: Was this invasion justified? Was it for oil? For power? Or just to serve personal agendas?
The result? America not only lost soldiers and money but also destroyed its own image. But there was another truth behind this war: On the day of the invasion, Lockheed Martin’s stock jumped by 250%, Raytheon’s profits reached $28 billion, and the Pentagon’s defense budget, which was $437 billion in 2003, shot up to $886 billion by 2023.
One big lie destroyed an entire country but gave the U.S. war economy an unprecedented boost.
Today, America is the world’s largest arms dealer, controlling 40% of global arms sales. In six out of ten global conflicts, U.S.-made weapons are used.
Take Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest arms importer. From 2015 to 2023, the U.S. sold Saudi Arabia $110 billion worth of advanced weapons. These weapons were used in Yemen, where, according to a U.N. report, 85,000 children have died due to hunger and war.
But this isn’t just about weapons—it’s a well-planned propaganda game. The U.S. and Saudi friendship is based on one thing: profits. Raytheon’s CEO even admitted in 2022 that the Yemen war was a "golden period" for missile sales.
War has become a business, and innocent lives are just collateral damage.
Another example is the Iran-Contra scandal. In the 1980s, while publicly opposing Iran, the U.S. secretly sold missiles to them. The money from these sales was then used to fund Nicaraguan rebels. In other words, they fueled the Iran-Iraq war and profited from both sides.
This is America’s real formula: Divide and Profit.
After 1945, due to the closure of 50 defense factories, unemployment rose to 15%. To save the economy from this collapse, a new model emerged—the Cold War model. By creating fear of communism, the foundation of a "forever war economy" was laid against the USSR, where military spending became the backbone of the economy.
In 1961, President Eisenhower, in his farewell speech, warned that the nexus between the military-industrial complex, contractors, and politicians could be dangerous for democracy. However, Congress and corporations ignored this warning. America turned fear into a product—first selling the fear of communism, and today, selling the fear of terrorism. Now, fear of Russia and China is being spread among the public. The media is being used as a weapon to plant the narrative that the world is in constant danger.
A prime example of this was the 2003 Iraq War, when Colin Powell presented a vial of anthrax at the UN, portraying Saddam Hussein as Hitler 2.0 and justifying the war. As a result, companies like Halliburton made billions, but the common people of Iraq were devastated.
After 9/11, this system became more institutionalized. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars skyrocketed the profits of corporations like Raytheon and Boeing, and the Pentagon's defense budget crossed $600 billion per year. Today, the US economy is so dependent on wars and defense spending that the numbers are shocking.
GDP Contribution:
The US defense industry contributes approximately $700 billion annually, forming a significant portion of the country's GDP. The 2023 defense budget was $886 billion, one of the largest in the world. Even if you combine the defense budgets of China, India, and Russia, the US budget is still three times higher.
The defense sector directly employs 2.5 million people, and another 4.7 million are indirectly employed in related industries, making it a major employer in the US. Defense spending fuels manufacturing and exports. The US is the world's largest arms exporter, controlling 40% of global arms sales. Between 2020 and 2023, the US exported arms worth $159 billion, which not only created jobs but also generated tax revenue. About 70% of US arms exports go to the Middle East.
Lobbying Power:
Top five defense contractors—Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing, etc.—spent $2.1 billion in lobbying donations to the US Congress in 2022, which was five times more than healthcare lobbying. US arms sales are not just about profits; they are also a geopolitical weapon. Allies like Saudi Arabia cannot imagine their military without US-made weapons. The dominance of US arms deals in the Middle East is evident from the Trump administration continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia despite the Yemen war in 2019. This shows that economic and geopolitical interests take priority over moral considerations.
If the US were to stop arms sales tomorrow, the biggest shock would be to its allies, who are dependent on US-made weapons. Competitors like Russia and China would definitely try to take advantage of this situation, potentially shifting global power dynamics.
Can America Survive Without War?
If the Pentagon were to shut down, the US economy would face a major shock, reigniting the "guns vs. butter" debate. The US war economy is not just an industry—it has become an integral part of the entire system, shaping profits, geopolitics, and economic structures. If this sector shuts down, states like Texas and California, which are defense manufacturing hubs, would experience massive unemployment and fall into recession.
US arms sales are not just about profit; they are also geopolitical tools. Without them, America could lose its allies. NATO and Japan, which rely heavily on US-made defense systems, would find it challenging to shift their military infrastructure, creating global instability in regions like Taiwan, the South China Sea, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand.
R&D in Defense:
The role of defense R&D is significant. Technologies like the internet, GPS, and drones were spin-offs from military projects. The US invests $130 billion annually in defense R&D. However, some argue that the US economy is diverse and high-tech enough to survive without wars. For example, after the Cold War ended in 1990, defense jobs dropped by 30%.
Convincing the Public:
The US not only sells wars globally but also justifies them to its domestic audience. During the Iraq War, America created a "war machine" using video games like Call of Duty, which turned war into entertainment and glorified violence. NFL flyovers, military ads, and recruitment campaigns frame war as a heroic act. However, the reality is that many soldiers return with PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), but instead of addressing their pain, a patriotic narrative is marketed to the public. This proves that war is not just limited to the battlefield—it is ingrained in every aspect of American society.
Can the US Reinvent Itself?
Can America survive without a war economy? This is a critical question. In the long run, for sustainability, the US must shift toward green energy and tech sectors. Companies like Tesla and SpaceX prove that the future of renewables and innovation is bright. However, this transition will not be easy, as defense lobbyists spend an average of $100 million annually on lobbying to block policy changes.
Future wars will be cyber and AI-based. If the US diversifies its defense spending toward digital warfare and cybersecurity, it can maintain its dominance. However, this requires political will, which is currently missing. Some leaders like Bernie Sanders advocate for Medicare and education reforms, but there is no consensus on defense budget cuts due to the strong lobbying influence.
Impacts and Learnings for India:
In 2024, India’s defense budget reached ₹6.21 lakh crore ($75 billion). India is now exporting arms, such as BrahMos missiles to the Philippines and Tejas fighter jets to Egypt. However, will India become a war salesman like the US?
60% of African countries, to which India wants to sell weapons, are already trapped in debt from China, the US, and the EU. Even if India sells Tejas jets to them on EMI, will they be able to pay back? If not, will India demand ports or mines in return? This could lead to a new era of colonialism.
One key takeaway is that the weapons used in conflicts like Manipur come from Israel, such as the Tavor rifles. This highlights the deep web of the global war economy.
Instead of focusing solely on investing in foreign defense contractors like Rafale, India should prioritize self-reliance (Atmanirbhar Bharat) by strengthening DRDO and indigenous defense production. If India invests in defense, it should be in a way that ensures national self-sufficiency rather than benefiting foreign hands.
Comments
Post a Comment