The War Economy in American Strategy: Industry of Conflict and Its Impact on International Security and Peace

Since the end of World War II, war, or the threat of it, has become a fundamental pillar of American strategy, not only to achieve political or military objectives but also to support the American economy and enhance its global standing. The American military-industrial complex is not merely a tool for national defense; it represents an integral part of the economic structure, driving growth, creating jobs, and keeping the United States in a position of technological dominance. Thus, wars—including direct military interventions or conflict management through allies—are no longer just security necessities but have become strategic investments with enormous economic returns.

1. The Military-Industrial Complex: The Beating Heart of the War Economy

The nature of the war economy in the United States can be understood through the concept of the “military-industrial complex,” a term popularized by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address in 1961, warning of its profound influence on American politics. Major companies like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and Northrop Grumman rely almost entirely on massive military contracts funded by the federal budget. These companies do not limit their activities to defense production; they also play a crucial role in shaping public policy through lobbying and political funding, leading to the continuation of wars or the escalation of conflicts to maximize their profits.

This connection between the economy and politics renders war an essential economic element. With each war or military escalation, the demand for weapons and military technology increases, creating new investment and expansion opportunities. Moreover, wars employ millions of Americans in the defense and security sectors, making conflict termination or military spending reductions a threat to domestic economic stability.

2. Wars as a Tool for Stimulating the American Economy

Historically, the United States has resorted to war or the threat of war as a means to stimulate the economy, especially during periods of recession. For example, World War II helped end the Great Depression, and the arms race during the Cold War led to a significant industrial boom. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, the “War on Terror” played a similar role, as the U.S. government pumped trillions of dollars into defense industries, helping to mitigate economic crises.

One important dimension of this economic pattern is that the United States does not always need to engage in large-scale wars; creating geopolitical tensions that justify continued military expenditure is sufficient. Here, strategies like “conflict management” and “proxy wars” emerge, whereby regional actors are used as tools for conflict, while American companies benefit from supplying weapons and logistical support.

3. Implications of This Model for International Security and Peace

This American approach leads to catastrophic effects on international security and peace. From a geopolitical perspective, the policy of “conflict perpetuation” exacerbates global instability, as Washington ignites conflicts in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and the Asia-Pacific region, ensuring constant demand for military industries.

One of the most dangerous outcomes is the proliferation of militarization as a tool for international governance, leading to arms races that undermine diplomatic initiatives in favor of military solutions. This dynamic also reinforces direct or indirect U.S. interventions in conflict zones, exacerbating humanitarian crises and the spread of civil wars and political coups.

Economically, this model drives other countries to allocate enormous budgets for armaments, harming development sectors and impoverishing communities. Moreover, the continuity of this pattern weakens the international system, as the United Nations and international institutions become powerless tools in conflict resolution due to the dominance of great powers, chiefly the United States, over decision-making mechanisms.

4. Possible Alternatives: Can the Vicious Cycle of the War Economy Be Broken?

With the increasing influence of the military-industrial complex on American politics, questions arise about the possibility of breaking this vicious cycle. Achieving this requires radical changes in the economic and political structure, such as reducing reliance on defense industries as a primary growth driver, redirecting investments toward civilian sectors, and strengthening diplomacy as a key tool for conflict resolution.

However, these alternatives face enormous challenges, especially since the political clout of military corporations in Washington makes any radical shift exceedingly difficult. Therefore, any real change must stem from popular pressure and strong political will, which currently seems distant, particularly as international tensions rise and arms races among major powers recommence.

The War Economy Between Sustainability and Explosion

From the perspective of U.S. national security, the war economy represents a complex phenomenon that intertwines economic, geopolitical, and strategic factors. While this model reaps enormous economic benefits for the United States, it poses a direct threat to global stability, leading to the militarization of international politics, the escalation of conflicts, and undermining opportunities for sustainable peace. In the absence of radical reforms, the continuation of this approach could lead to major crises that threaten the entire global order, especially with escalating tensions between major powers and a return to broad strategic competition.