EP50: America’s Addiction to War: The Military-Industrial Complex in the Age of Big Tech

Summary:

In this episode, we examine the substantial financial and societal costs of the "War on Terror" initiated following the 9/11 attacks. We explore the financial burden of these conflicts on the U.S. budget, including the expenditures on military operations, veterans' benefits, and reconstruction efforts. We also discuss the influence of the military-industrial complex, highlighting the role of private companies in shaping defense policy and benefiting from these ongoing wars. Additionally, we shed light on the increasing adoption of advanced technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, within the military and the potential ethical and societal implications of this integration.

Questions to consider as you read/listen:

1. How has the War on Terror impacted the US military budget and the technology it employs?
2. What are the key players and their roles in the evolution of the US military-industrial complex?
3. How are emerging technologies, specifically artificial intelligence, influencing modern warfare?

Long format:

America’s Addiction to War: The Military-Industrial Complex in the Age of Big Tech

TL;DR

America’s heavy military involvement abroad is driven less by strategic necessity than by a deeply entrenched military-industrial complex (MIC) increasingly tied to Big Tech. While a robust military is crucial, the United States tends to reflexively engage in conflicts, often without considering true national security stakes. The MIC—made up of defense contractors, policymakers, and, now, Big Tech—profits from ongoing warfare and has grown even stronger through mergers, political lobbying, and partnerships with companies like Amazon, Google, and Palantir. This alliance extends the MIC’s reach, funding wars, developing advanced tech for conflict, and making the U.S. more interventionist.

Big Tech’s entry into the MIC has added new dimensions like AI-driven targeting, cloud computing, autonomous systems, and cybersecurity, reshaping military strategies and making engagement easier and cheaper. The result: America’s dependence on war has morphed into an economic and technological reliance, creating incentives for constant conflict. To shift away, the U.S. must implement stricter Congressional controls, and question each military involvement more rigorously.

INTRODUCTION AND THESIS

We (the United States) are ADDICTED to war. Absolutely addicted. The 20+ year GWOT and Iraq are exhibits A and B. But it’s not just the war for war’s sake that is our addiction. It’s the military-industrial spending and the logistics providing. This is especially so in the area of the non-direct warfare functions related to deployment of weapons, troops or materials. Some have argued that the war in the Ukraine is yet another iteration and presentation of this addiction.

America’s vast military footprint is not solely a result of strategic interests or a commitment to global security. Instead, a powerful and increasingly entrenched military-industrial complex (MIC) sustains, and arguably drives, the nation’s seemingly endless cycle of warfare.

I am not a "peacenik," nor do I advocate for defunding the military. In fact, I firmly believe in the importance of a strong, capable military, especially in today’s post-globalization landscape where geopolitical threats are evolving rapidly. A well-resourced and prepared military is crucial to protect national interests and ensure security at home and abroad. However, our frequent and almost reflexive response to deploy troops or send military aid to conflicts worldwide—often without critical examination of their true strategic importance—raises important questions about how we prioritize and approach global engagement. We must evaluate whether every conflict justifies American military involvement or if some of these entanglements detract from our ability to respond effectively to challenges that genuinely threaten our national security.

The GWOT cost 8,000,000,000,000 ($8T). There are no precise figures but it is estimated that well over half of that money was for non-direct warfare functions such as logistics, maintenance, transportation, computer support, training, and other similar types of required capabilities and related activities such as outsourcing food preparation, outsourcing laundry, outsourcing telecommunications back home for troops, bringing along a McDonald’s and/or Burger King, FOB construction, general construction and so on.

The military industrial complex (MIC) in this country is no joke. As former Supreme Allied commander and later US President Dwight D Eisenhower warned us: “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” (January 17, 1961, in this farewell address)

But the MIC is bigger and more entrenched now than in 1961 with a new dimension added to it—BIG TECH. Big tech has put the MIC on steroids.

In addition there has been a massive consolidation of MIC companies through merger and acquisitions. The rise of mega-firms has led to fewer defense contractors, with five giants now dominating Pentagon contracts.

The MIC also wields enormous influence through political lobbying, spending over $247 million recently, with 820 lobbyists engaging Congress, and through funding foreign policy think tanks that shape pro-defense industry narratives.

The MIC has become more pervasive, more profitable, and more influential, fueled by the burgeoning partnership between traditional defense contractors and Silicon Valley’s tech giants. This paper explores America’s deep-seated dependence on the MIC, examining how Big Tech’s integration into the defense sector has cemented this reliance, expanded it technologically, and ultimately made the MIC harder to disentangle from U.S. foreign policy and economic imperatives.

I. The Foundations of the Military-Industrial Complex: From Cold War to Endless Conflict

Eisenhower’s farewell address in 1961 cautioned against the “unwarranted influence” of the military-industrial complex, a network of defense contractors, military officials, and policymakers with a vested interest in sustaining military budgets and global conflicts. During the Cold War, this alliance focused on countering the Soviet threat, producing the largest, most advanced military in history. Yet, after the Cold War ended, the MIC did not wither. Instead, it adapted, supporting wars in the Middle East, the war on terror, and an ever-growing range of international conflicts. President Biden recently framed the U.S. as the “arsenal of democracy” amid conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, echoing Roosevelt’s WWII call for American military support. By keeping America in a state of perpetual conflict, the MIC has ensured that military spending, political support for foreign intervention, and the demand for new weapons systems remain high.

Today, the United States controls a staggering 45% of the global arms market, with arms manufacturers like Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, and Northrop Grumman generating billions from foreign arms sales. According to recent figures, wars in Ukraine, Gaza, and the broader Middle East have increased demand for U.S.-produced weaponry, sustaining profits for contractors while generating windfalls for investors and corporate executives. President Biden himself has praised the arms industry as an “arsenal of democracy,” depicting military production as a patriotic pursuit. Yet, this narrative obscures the MIC’s profit-driven motives, which are deeply intertwined with the persistence of international conflict.

II. The Expansion of the MIC: Big Tech Joins the Fray

In recent years, Silicon Valley has added a new dimension to the MIC, as tech companies like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, and Palantir secured massive Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. These companies provide the military with cutting-edge capabilities, including artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and data analytics, which have become essential for modern warfare. The integration of Big Tech into the defense ecosystem reflects a shift toward “data-driven warfare,” which relies on AI-enabled drones, autonomous systems, and cloud-based intelligence processing to identify and target threats.

This Big Tech-MIC collaboration is a significant evolution from the Cold War model, which focused on traditional weaponry. Today, military leaders increasingly view AI and data processing as indispensable tools, and Silicon Valley’s powerful tech giants have proven to be eager suppliers. Contracts like the DoD’s $9 billion Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC) initiative, awarded to Amazon, Google, Oracle, and Microsoft, signal that tech companies are not merely service providers but are now core players in the MIC. Despite employee protests against projects like Google’s Project Maven or Amazon’s Project Nimbus, Big Tech firms have continued to pursue defense contracts, positioning themselves as crucial partners in America’s military future.

Big Tech has significantly fueled and expanded the military-industrial complex (MIC) by embedding itself into the defense sector and reshaping military operations with advanced technology. Historically, the MIC was dominated by traditional defense contractors focused on manufacturing conventional weapons systems—tanks, jets, missiles. Today, companies like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Palantir, and Anduril have introduced new capabilities, including artificial intelligence, big data analytics, cloud computing, and autonomous systems. These innovations have become integral to modern warfare, driving a new era of high-tech military operations and dramatically expanding the MIC’s influence, reach, and profitability.

1. AI and Data Analytics: Enhancing Targeting and Surveillance

Big Tech’s AI and data analytics tools have transformed how the military processes and utilizes intelligence. Companies like Palantir provide advanced data integration and analysis, allowing the military to process massive volumes of data for more precise and efficient targeting, pattern recognition, and threat prediction. These AI-driven capabilities are now central to surveillance and reconnaissance operations, making them critical in both domestic security and foreign conflicts.

For example, Google’s controversial involvement in Project Maven, which provided AI to analyze drone surveillance footage, marked a watershed moment in Big Tech’s integration with the MIC. Although Google employees protested the project, arguing it turned civilian tech into tools of war, the project underscored how AI could significantly enhance military efficiency and effectiveness. By partnering with tech firms, the military can leverage AI to automate target identification and threat assessments, ultimately lowering the threshold for deployment and engagement in overseas conflicts.

2. Cloud Computing: The Backbone of Modern Military Operations

Cloud computing has become a cornerstone for military infrastructure, supporting secure, scalable, and centralized data storage and processing. Microsoft, Amazon, and Google have all secured major contracts with the Department of Defense to provide cloud services that enable rapid data access and support for real-time operations. The Joint Warfighting Cloud Capability (JWCC), a $9 billion contract, exemplifies Big Tech’s critical role in modern military strategy. This initiative provides cloud services across Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Oracle, enabling the military to operate across dispersed locations with better data integration, intelligence sharing, and mission coordination.

Cloud computing allows the military to streamline and unify its operations, making it more agile and capable of coordinating complex, data-heavy missions worldwide. It also supports increasingly autonomous warfare by serving as the foundation for real-time data processing required for AI-driven systems like drones and robotic weaponry. In short, cloud computing has not only become essential to military readiness but also enables a more continuous, “always on” operational posture that feeds the MIC’s expansion.

3. Autonomous Systems and Robotics: Redefining Warfare

Big Tech’s advancements in autonomous systems and robotics have also redefined the MIC by moving beyond traditional hardware to include autonomous weapons and surveillance platforms. Defense-oriented startups like Anduril Industries specialize in autonomous technologies, including drones and surveillance systems that do not require human pilots or operators. Anduril’s Lattice AI platform, for example, integrates sensors, drones, and other autonomous systems to detect and track targets autonomously, a capability that reduces reliance on human personnel while expanding military reach.

This shift towards autonomy has profound implications. Autonomous drones and robotic systems allow for persistent surveillance and engagement capabilities without the immediate need for human involvement. This reduces costs and logistical constraints, enabling the U.S. to engage in more operations with fewer personnel—a dynamic that amplifies America’s capacity for military action. By facilitating persistent presence without putting troops on the ground, Big Tech has lowered the perceived costs of military engagements, making intervention more feasible and potentially increasing the frequency and scope of U.S. involvement abroad.

4. Cybersecurity and Cyber Warfare: Expanding the Digital Battlefield

The MIC has increasingly expanded into cyberspace, with Big Tech playing a leading role in cyber defense and cyber warfare capabilities. Microsoft and Google provide the military with advanced cybersecurity solutions to protect critical infrastructure, secure communications, and defend against cyber threats. In addition, these companies often work closely with U.S. Cyber Command to defend against foreign cyber-attacks and develop offensive cyber capabilities.

The integration of Big Tech’s cybersecurity tools into the MIC extends the battlefield into the digital realm, creating new opportunities for conflict that require constant surveillance and a rapid response capability. This extension of military activity into cyberspace has broadened the MIC’s domain, reinforcing the need for high-tech solutions and generating a steady flow of government contracts for cybersecurity and cyber intelligence tools. In turn, this expands the MIC’s influence and further intertwines Big Tech with national defense objectives.

5. Global Surveillance Infrastructure: Supporting U.S. Geopolitical Influence

Through partnerships with the intelligence community and military, Big Tech has helped create a global surveillance infrastructure that enhances the U.S. ability to monitor geopolitical threats. Companies like Amazon and Palantir provide platforms for the collection, storage, and analysis of vast amounts of intelligence data. For instance, Palantir’s software is widely used by the CIA, FBI, and military to analyze surveillance data and generate actionable intelligence.

This global surveillance network enables the U.S. to maintain a dominant position in intelligence-gathering, a capability that reinforces its geopolitical influence. By supporting extensive intelligence operations, Big Tech has effectively broadened the scope and ambition of U.S. foreign policy, facilitating a more interventionist stance and enabling the MIC to maintain an active presence across multiple global regions. This infrastructure reinforces the MIC’s entrenchment, as maintaining and expanding surveillance networks creates a constant demand for high-tech solutions and supports a continuous funding stream.

6. Lobbying Power and Political Influence: Reshaping Defense Policy

In addition to providing technological infrastructure, Big Tech also wields significant lobbying power in Washington, which it uses to influence defense policies and secure lucrative contracts. Amazon, Microsoft, and Google, for example, have established powerful lobbying teams that advocate for increased defense spending on technology and less restrictive regulations on military contracts. This lobbying influence allows Big Tech to shape defense policy to ensure favorable terms and maintain a steady flow of government contracts.

Furthermore, Big Tech’s role as a defense contractor has blurred the line between private enterprise and public policy, leading to the “revolving door” phenomenon, where executives and officials move between industry and government roles. This convergence of corporate and government interests has resulted in policies that prioritize defense funding for advanced technology and downplay ethical concerns or restrictions on foreign arms sales, ultimately entrenching Big Tech within the MIC.

Big Tech=Big Money

Big Tech’s entry into the MIC has transformed the landscape of American military operations, moving the MIC beyond traditional weaponry and expanding its reach into high-tech domains. From AI-driven surveillance and autonomous systems to cyber warfare and cloud-based intelligence, Silicon Valley’s technologies have become indispensable to the modern military. As a result, Big Tech has not only fueled the MIC’s growth but has entrenched it in new, harder-to-regulate areas of defense.

Most importantly, this expansion has lowered the barriers to military engagement, enabling a more interventionist U.S. foreign policy and creating a constant demand for high-tech solutions that fuel both profits and conflict. The involvement of Big Tech has also made the MIC more politically powerful and harder to reform, as the influence of these companies extends deep into defense policy, government contracts, and military decision-making. Consequently, Big Tech’s integration into the MIC has not only bolstered America’s military capabilities but has solidified a structure that makes reducing America’s dependence on warfare far more challenging.

III. How the MIC Shapes Foreign Policy: Arms Exports and Congressional Influence

The influence of the MIC extends into U.S. foreign policy, where it shapes decisions about where to sell arms, whom to support in conflicts, and how long to maintain military engagements. U.S.-supplied arms fuel conflicts in dozens of countries, from Saudi Arabia to Ukraine. For example, American weapons have been central to Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen, which has led to hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties and a prolonged humanitarian crisis. Though Congress occasionally attempts to restrict arms sales to human rights violators, the MIC’s influence within Washington usually ensures that these efforts fail. Companies like Raytheon and Lockheed Martin actively lobby to preserve their lucrative deals, leveraging their status as job providers and patriots.

The MIC’s ability to influence Congress is significant. Recent efforts by arms companies to reduce regulatory scrutiny over arms sales highlight how deeply they are embedded in the policymaking process. The Foreign Military Sales program, which expedites weapons transfers to foreign governments, has essentially turned the Pentagon into an international arms broker for U.S. corporations. To make matters worse, current law requires a veto-proof majority to block arms sales, which, given the millions of dollars in campaign contributions from defense firms, has never been achieved. To rein in this unrestrained influence, some suggest reversing this rule to require Congressional approval before sales can proceed, making it more difficult for the MIC to sell arms indiscriminately.

IV. The New Drivers of War: Big Tech and the Militarization of Technology

The involvement of Big Tech has added new pressures for continuous conflict. Silicon Valley thrives on constant innovation and the drive for increased efficiency and scalability. Translated to the defense sector, these impulses result in a constant demand for newer, more advanced, and more automated weapons systems. This cycle of technological innovation pushes the MIC toward creating increasingly advanced forms of warfare, making it difficult to dial back or restrain military spending. With Big Tech involved, the defense sector is incentivized not only to develop and deploy more weapons but to make them more sophisticated, autonomous, and integrated into surveillance networks.

Furthermore, Big Tech’s involvement in the MIC brings immense political and economic clout to the defense sector. Tech CEOs like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and former Google CEO Eric Schmidt advocate for expanded U.S. defense initiatives, arguing that technological superiority is essential for national security. This alignment between tech leaders and military officials effectively merges the goals of Silicon Valley with those of the defense industry, creating a powerful alliance that propels the U.S. toward continuous military expansion.

V. Breaking the Cycle: Toward a New Approach to National Security

The entrenchment of Big Tech within the MIC has made it harder than ever to reduce military spending to non-essential conflicts or shift away from a reliance on arms exports and military interventions wherever they may be. However, various reforms could help reduce America’s dependence on the MIC and redirect resources toward diplomacy and peaceful engagement.

One possible approach would be to implement stricter Congressional oversight of arms sales, requiring a majority vote for each proposed sale. Increased transparency around defense contracts, particularly with tech firms, would also help reveal the true costs and ethical implications of these partnerships.

Moreover, a greater emphasis on diplomacy and non-military solutions could help counter the impulse to view every geopolitical challenge through a military lens.

Conclusion/Opinion

The partnership between Big Tech and the traditional MIC has created a formidable entity that profits from and promotes continuous military engagement. This alliance ensures that both defense contractors and tech firms have a vested interest in sustaining conflicts, fueling a cycle of military intervention that undermines our true strategic best interests and diverts public resources from critical civilian needs. Reversing this trend will require a concerted effort to curb the influence of the MIC, sitting back and questioning whether or not the US truly has to become involved in a conflict and otherwise be more prudent in our deployment of precious resources. America’s addiction to war is no longer just a matter of defense policy—it is an economic and technological dependency that endangers both the nation and perhaps the world. In reasserting democratic control over the MIC, the United States has the opportunity to redefine its role in the world, not as an arsenal of democracy but as a champion of pragmatism. We do not need to police the world.

Sources:

https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_afghanwarxcost.htm

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/column_article/the-staggering-cost-of-the-never-ending-global-war-on-terror

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Costs%20of%20War_U.S.%20Budgetary%20Costs%20of%20Post-9%2011%20Wars_9.1.21.pdf

https://www.thenation.com/article/world/military-industrial-complex-defense/

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2023/2024/Silicon%20Valley%20MIC.pdf

https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3239378/department-of-defense-announces-joint-warfighting-cloud-capability-procurement/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2024-02-29/inside-project-maven-the-us-military-s-ai-project

https://www.hacc.mil/Portfolio/JWCC/

https://www.oracle.com/government/federal/jwcc/

https://www.anduril.com/article/anduril-s-lattice-a-trusted-dual-use-commercial-and-military-platform-for-public-safety-security/