From 1797 to 1941, the US government only relied on civilian industries while the country was at war. With the onset of World War II President Roosevelt established the War production Board to coordinate civilian industries and shift them into wartime production. After the second world war, the threat of communism reared its ugly head and President Truman, harkening back to Manifest Destiny, pledged “to support for democracies against authoritarian threats.”

The United States was clearly the World Cop and its military power now needed committed companies to sustain it. The Military Industrial Complex emerged, tying the Defense Department,  military institutions, and defense contractors into a focused effort  to keep the military a well-oiled machine for all time.

President Eisenhower, who observed the development of the MIC, warned Americans about the MIC, stating, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” He feared the MIC would drive policies that escalated nuclear arms at a great cost to America.

His warning proved real. The key was getting annual support from members of Congress to fund the beast. Both Defense Department folks and lobbyists of military corporations pressured Congress but soon Congress became a willing partner because much of the money would go to Congressional districts that relied on military industries.

The MIC has evolved into the MIC plus Congress (MICC). The relationship among the three parties – Congress, the executive branch bureaucracy, interest groups and the defense industrial base  has grown so strong that Eisenhower’s fear of unchecked military expansion has become a reality.

In fiscal year 2016, the U.S. government spent some $604 billion on national defense. The 2025 authorization is pushing $900 billion.

We spend far more than any of them on defense. For example, allies France, Germany and the United Kingdom together spend less than $150 billion annually on defense.

And out major enemies: Russia and China. Together they spend half of what the U.S. does annually. But in many ways they have better equipment than we do, like hypersonic missiles which to date we cannot stop.

Under the international Military Index, we rank Number 1, but Russia, then China are hot on our heels despite spending combined less than half of what we spend on military annually.

But many countries, especially our allies, rely on the US to bail them out if war appears. These countries are more like American protectorates, than allies. Today we have 113,000 troops in 145 countries out of a total of 195. We are in 75% of countries worldwide.

Should we continue to be the World Cop? Or should other countries step up and increase their funding and military power? Would such a build-up promote “peace through strength” or lead to even greater warfare? Should, as Eisenhower urged, the United States pursue more diplomacy than kinetic warfare?