"War is Good for Business"

by Michel Chossudovsky

Does President Bush intend to jump-start confidence in the stock-market by 
launching a "timely" military strike?

"I have great faith in the resiliency of the economy. And no question about 
it this incident affected our economy. But the markets open tomorrow, 
people go back to work. We'll show the world." (Remarks by George W Bush, 
Reuters, 16/9/01)

On the other hand, what will be the fate of America's social programs in a 
war economy? Five days before the terrorist assaults on the World Trade 
Centre and the Pentagon, President Bush stated almost prophetically:

"I have repeatedly said the only time to use Social Security money is in 
times of war, times of recession, or times of severe emergency. And I mean 
that. I mean that." (Transcript of Remarks by Presidents Bush and Fox 
(Mexico)on Departure to Toledo, Ohio (US Newswire, Inc, 6/9/01)

"I mean that, I mean that." The tone of the President's rhetoric has set 
the stage for an expansion of America's war machine.

The "recession" and "war" buzzwords are being used to mould US public 
opinion into accepting a massive redirection of the nation's resources 
towards the military industrial complex.

In turn, in the wake of the terrorist attacks "love of country", 
"allegiance" and "patriotism" increasingly pervade the media.

The hidden agenda is to create a new legitimacy, opening the door for a 
"revitalisation of the nation's defense" while also providing a 
justification for direct military actions by the US in different parts of 
the World.

Meanwhile, the shift from civilian into military production pours wealth 
into the hands of defence contractors at the expense of civilian needs.

Job creation in America's war machine

And behind the Bush Administration is the power of the "big five" defence 
contractors (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon et al), increasingly in 
partnership with the oil-energy giants, which are behind many of the 
regional wars and insurgencies along strategic oil pipelines.

The Big Five defense contractors have been shifting staff and resources 
from "civilian" into "military" production lines.

Lockheed Martin (LMT), — America's largest defence contractor — for 
instance, has implemented major cuts in its satellite division due to "flat 
demand" in the commercial satellite market.

A company spokesman had reassured Wall Street that Lockheed "was moving in 
the right direction" by shifting financial resources out of its troubled 
commercial (that is, civilian) undertakings into the lucrative production 
of advanced weapon systems including the F-22 Raptor high tech fighter jet 
to be assembled at Lockheed Martin Marietta's plant in Georgia.

Each of the F22 Raptor fighters will have a unit cost of US$85 million, 
3000 direct jobs will be created at a modest cost of US$20 million a job.

Boeing, which is bidding for the US$200 billion procurement contract with 
the Defence Department for the production of the Joint Striker Fighters 
(JSF), confirmed that only 3000 jobs would be created.

The latter would not even offset the massive lay-offs at Boeing's Seattle 
plant in recent years. At Boeing, each job created in the JSF programme 
would cost US taxpayers $66.7 million. ("Seattle Post Intelligencer", 
7/9/01)

No wonder the Adminstration wants to downsise social security programs! 
(Lockeed Martin together with Northrop Grumman, which are also bidding for 
the Joint Fighter contract estimate 5400 direct jobs, at a unit cost for 
each job created of $37 million.

The production of advanced weapons systems in America today, is unlikely to 
resolve the mounting tide of unemployment.

This new direction of the US economy will generate hundreds of billions of 
dollars of surplus profits, which will line the pockets of a handful of 
large corporations.

It will contribute very marginally to the rehabilitation of the employment 
of specialised scientific, technical and professional workers laid-off by 
the civilian economy.

This profit bonanza will also be used by the US corporate establishment to 
finance — in the form of so-called "foreign investment" — the expansion 
of the American Empire in different parts of the World. 

* * *

Michel Chossudovsky, Centre for Research on Globalisation

http://globalresearch.ca