Follow us on social

What Paul Krugman gets wrong about the military industrial complex

What Paul Krugman gets wrong about the military industrial complex

The NYT columnist uses irrelevant metrics to argue for giving more money to the Pentagon.

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman would like you to know that the term “military-industrial complex” (MIC) is outmoded and that we spend far less on the Pentagon now than we did when President Eisenhower introduced that phrase in his 1961 farewell address.

Krugman is wrong on both counts.

First, he uses a misleading measure of Pentagon spending that obscures rather than reveals just how enormous our investment in that agency is by historical standards. He notes that Pentagon spending is a smaller share of the national economy than it was in Eisenhower’s day. This is true but irrelevant. There is no reason that Pentagon outlays should track the growth of the overall economy, which is six times as large now as it was in 1961. But no one in their right mind is suggesting a sixfold increase in the Department of Defense’s budget. The level of military outlays should be determined by how much is needed to address the security risks we face, not by arbitrary comparisons with the size of the economy.

The best measure of Pentagon spending is — wait for it — how much we actually spend on the Pentagon. Our current military budget is more than twice as much, adjusted for inflation, as it was in Eisenhower’s day. And if current trends continue, it is poised to reach $1 trillion or more in the next year or two. That may seem like a manageable sum to Mr. Krugman, but most taxpayers would disagree.

As for the relevance of the term “military-industrial complex,” it is more a question of linguistic preference than a reflection on the continuing influence of the arms lobby. Krugman is right to point out that U.S. involvement in the wars in Gaza and Ukraine is not being done at the behest of weapons makers seeking a big payday. But the big contractors are poised to profit from current wars, and their services don’t come cheap.

More importantly, the arms lobby has exploited the war in Ukraine to press for special favors that have nothing to do with defending that country: cushy multi-year contracts; reduced scrutiny that will enable more price gouging, cost overruns and performance problems; rushing arms sales out the door with less vetting of their human rights and strategic impacts; and supersizing the arms manufacturing base at taxpayer expense.

Whether you call it the MIC, the arms lobby, or the Salvation Army, the big weapons makers and their allies in Congress and the Pentagon have as much or more power and influence now as they did when Eisenhower left office.

The MIC, or whatever Paul Krugman chooses to call it, is still a lobbying powerhouse. Lockheed Martin and its cohort routinely team up with key members of Congress to add more money to the Pentagon budget than the department even asks for, mostly for weapons that are built in the states of those officials. It is a classic case of special interests overriding the national interest.

In pursuit of these excess funds, which can amount to tens of billions of dollars each year, the industry brings its impressive lobbying machine to bear. The arms industry makes tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions every election cycle, with a focus on members of the armed services and defense appropriations panels. And the sums spent are not small. House Armed Services Committee chair Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) received half a million dollars in weapons industry contributions in the most recent election cycle, with other key members not far behind.

The arms sector spends even more on lobbying than it does on campaign contributions, employing over 800 registered lobbyists in all — more than one for every member of Congress. Most of these lobbyists have come through the revolving door from senior positions in Congress or the Pentagon, and they use their connections with former colleagues to curry favor for their corporate employers.

For example, a recent study that my colleague Dillon Fisher and I did for the Quincy Institute found that 80 percent of four-star generals and admirals who retired in the past five years went to work on behalf of the arms industry in one form or another: as board members, lobbyists, executives, consultants, or advisers to firms that invest heavily in the arms sector.

Can we afford to spend more on the Pentagon? Technically yes, but it would come at a high price, reducing our capacity to address other urgent national needs. The $12 to $13 billion the Pentagon spends every year on the overpriced, dysfunctional F-35 combat aircraft is more than the entire annual budget of the Centers for Disease Control. And in one recent year, Lockheed Martin received more federal funding than the State Department and the Agency for International Development combined. The Pentagon consumes well over half of the federal discretionary budget which is the part of the budget that is available for public investment. Environmental protection, public health, job training, criminal justice and other basic functions of government have to compete for what’s left after the Pentagon gets its oversized share of the pie.

I do agree with Krugman on one point: “By all means, let’s have a good faith argument about how much America should spend on its military.” But a thorough, balanced debate that actually leads to beneficial changes in spending and strategy will be extremely difficult to carry out without curbing the influence of the military-industrial complex.


A.PAES via shutterstock.com

Analysis | Military Industrial Complex
iraqi protests iran israel
Top photo credit: Iraqi Shi'ite Muslims hold a cutout of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they attend a protest against Israeli strikes on Iran, in Baghdad, Iraq, June 16, 2025. REUTERS/Ahmed Saad

Iraq on razor's edge between Iran and US interests in new war

Middle East

As Israeli jets and Iranian rockets streak across the Middle Eastern skies, Iraq finds itself caught squarely in the crossfire.

With regional titans clashing above its head, Iraq’s fragile and hard-won stability, painstakingly rebuilt over decades of conflict, now hangs precariously in the balance. Washington’s own tacit acknowledgement of Iraq’s vulnerable position was laid bare by its decision to partially evacuate embassy personnel in Iraq and allow military dependents to leave the region.

This withdrawal, prompted by intelligence indicating Israeli preparations for long-range strikes, highlighted that Iraq’s airspace would be an unwitting corridor for Israeli and Iranian operations.

Prime Minister Mohammed Shia’ al-Sudani is now caught in a complicated bind, attempting to uphold Iraq’s security partnership with the United States while simultaneously facing intense domestic pressure from powerful, Iran-aligned Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) factions. These groups, emboldened by the Israel-Iran clash, have intensified their calls for American troop withdrawal and threaten renewed attacks against U.S. personnel, viewing them as legitimate targets and enablers of Israeli aggression.

keep readingShow less
George Bush mission accomplished
This file photo shows Bush delivering a speech to crew aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, as the carrier steamed toward San Diego, California on May 1, 2003. via REUTERS

Déjà coup: Iran war activates regime change dead-enders

Washington Politics

By now you’ve likely seen the viral video of an Iranian television reporter fleeing off-screen as Israel bombed the TV station where she was recording live. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein quickly pointed out, Israel's attack on the broadcasting facility is directly out of the regime change playbook, “meant to shake public confidence in the Iranian government's ability to protect itself” and by implication, Iran’s citizenry.

Indeed, in the United States there is a steady drumbeat of media figures and legislators who have been loudly championing Israel’s apparent desire to overthrow the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

keep readingShow less
Ukraine NATO
Top photo credit: August 2024 -- Led by the United Kingdom and involving trainers from 12 other countries, Operation Interflex gives Ukrainian recruits a five-week crash course in everything from infantry tactics to combat first aid, preparing them to defend their homeland. . (NATO/Flickr)

How NATO military doctrine failed Ukraine on the battlefield

Europe

The war in Ukraine has raged for over three years. As ceasefire talks loom, major European NATO members including Germany, UK, France and Denmark are planning to protect any future armistice by sending their troops as peacekeepers in a “Coalition of the Willing.”

Their goal is to deter the Russians from restarting the war. Unfortunately, deterrence comes from combat capability. Without it there is no deterrence at all. That capability is in question. NATO equipment and doctrine was developed for the Cold War and tested in the mountains of Afghanistan. It has not been tested in conventional war and needs to absorb lessons from the Ukraine war to offer a military option to the European elites, independent of the United States.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.