The Powers That Control Washington Tighten Their Grip

Within the past week the U.S. government has signed $123 billion worth of weapons sales with six Persian Gulf countries. With this sale, the heavily indebted U.S. is looking to breathe life into its contracting economy and increasing unemployment. On the other hand, this is also a blatant demonstration of the influence that the national defense industry holds over Obama’s foreign policy.

This is the story of how Obama has surrendered to the defense industry over the past year and a half.

When Obama entered office, his primary goal was to reduce the national debt. But Obama knew it would be difficult to bring the defense industry into the fold of his belt-tightening policies.

In a 2009 press conference Obama remarked that, “Lobbyists are very active in the defense industry. They are very successful in terms of winning defense auctions and contracts from the Defense Department.”* Defense Secretary Robert Gates stated that he aimed to bring defense contract administration and approval standards to a more disciplined level and in doing so save $40 billion.

However, the defense industry, which contributes $97 billion of U.S. exports and employs two million Americans, had no intention of surrendering. The posturing began when Obama began his administration in January 2009, with newspaper ads presenting the defense industry as, “not just instruments for national defense, but also essential sources of employment.”* The essence of the message was clear: “Keep your hands off the defense industry.”

The Washington Independent published Obama’s March 2009 statements, which made clear his intent not to acquiesce to the defense industry. Intimating the budget-exceeding warship and fighter jet programs, Obama stated that sacrificing limited funds to wasteful defense problems is an “unwise decision.” He added that he could see the difference between real investments in protecting the American people and wasteful projects aimed at enriching the defense industry.

But It Was Only Words

In order to rein in defense spending, Obama brought in as Assistant Defense Secretary former Raytheon lobbyist William Lynn. However, many thought that Lynn was not going to oppose his former colleagues very forcefully. Lynn announced that the budget allocations to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would be released to the public along with the other budget outlays. Obama supported this position as a way to bring greater oversight to the war budgets.

Obama allocated $663.7 billion to the 2010 defense budget. This was one and a half times greater than 2009’s budget. Ostensibly, U.S. departures from Iraq and Afghanistan were going to make defense cuts possible. As promised in his election campaign, Obama did pull out of Iraq. However, Obama negated this move by sending 40,000 extra troops to Afghanistan, which cost the U.S. more than $6.7 billion a month.

In a [British] Times interview, Commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan General David Petraeus remarked that he did not foresee pulling out of Afghanistan by the proposed deadline at the end of 2011.

How the Events Transpired

According to data given by the Center for Responsive Politics, the Washington defense lobby spent $148 million in 2008. $24 million was spent during the presidential election campaign alone.

After Obama’s election victory, a torrent of letters reached Obama asking him not to cancel the giant military projects currently in progress. To prevent Lockheed Martin’s $350 billion F-22 Raptor project from being cancelled, 44 Senators and 191 Representatives signed an open letter. This letter did not neglect to mention that the project employed 25,000 people in 44 U.S. states.

Similarly, it was also recommended that the Navy’s fleet be increased from six to 12 large warships. This time the lobbyists pointed out that 400,000 people in 44 states were employed in this project.

Approval for the Weapons Program, Cancellation of the Space Projects

January 2010 was an important month in terms of lobby activities and the consequences they bring about. At the end of January, Obama cancelled NASA’s Constellation program, which entailed a mission to send another man to the moon. The goal was to cut the budget in certain areas in order to form a job-creation fund.

According to a White House announcement, the program to establish a colony on the moon had fallen severely behind schedule, exceeded its budget and was “unimportant,” compared to other space programs. Obama announced that, unlike the unprecedented increase in budget allocations for defense, the NASA budget will only increase by $5 billion over the next five years. With this decision NASA’s budget was set at $19 billion for 2011.

According to Obama’s new space policies, private aeronautic companies that have been lobbying for years to break NASA’s monopoly on space travel will now have increased opportunity, and private space travel is going to be encouraged. Alongside heavy criticism from experts, it is alleged that these cuts will cause the U.S. to fall behind China, Russia and Japan, which are planning to reach the moon by 2020 and 2025.

Following the cancellation of the Constellation project, the Obama administration cancelled the Orion capsule and the Aries rocket which would have carried people to the moon. Companies involved in these projects, such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing, are suffering losses on these contracts, but these losses will soon be recouped, and then some.

Conquest of the Persian Gulf

In September the U.S. signed the largest weapons deal in history. Only a few weeks before the signing, Chairman of the American Israel Cooperative Enterprise Mitchell Bard published a book entitled “The Arab Lobby.” Accepted as one of America’s most prominent Middle East experts, Bard claims that the Arab lobby is even more influential than the Israeli lobby.

Bard maintains that AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee] is not the only influential lobby in Washington; in fact, countries like Saudi Arabia have used different strategies as they try to increase their influence.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz commented on the article in the Daily Beast, opining that, “What [the Arab lobbies] lack in human capital in terms of American advocates, they make up for with almost unlimited resources to try to buy what they usually cannot win on the merits of their arguments.”

Bard claims that a number of influential politicians were deemed appropriate for “job offers” from Arab lobbies and have been following a pro-Arab line ever since. Only a short time after this article’s publication, the U.S. announced its historic weapons contract, which found support from both Arab and Israeli leaders.

The Lobbyists’ Victory

According to data provided by the Center for Responsive Politics, between 1998 and 2010 the top 20 lobbyist activities included four aeronautics and defense firms. These are (from greatest to least activity): General Electric, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Lockheed Martin. In a 12-year span these corporations have spent a total of $626 million on lobbying.

Obama delivered a serious blow to the project of supporting human life in space by canceling the Constellation program, which was projected to cost $97 billion by 2020. However, the war in Afghanistan costs the U.S. government $105 billion every single year.

* Editor’s Note: These quotes, properly translated, could not be verified.