“It’s a lot of jobs for us, and a lot of safety for Japan and other countries that are likewise purchasing military equipment from us.”
Presidents never say this, but Donald Trump did. Presidents never openly acknowledge, though this president did, that a consideration, even a driving force, behind our nation’s global defense policies is a desire to pump up the economy here at home.
EDITORIAL
Japan’s decision to buy an advanced U.S. anti-missile battery system, which Trump urged on Monday, would mean more jobs for American workers. It would mean, as well, a lot of happy legislators on Capitol Hill. They accept tens of millions of dollars in campaign contributions each year from American exporters of military planes, guns and electronics.
But in so baldly linking military exports to jobs, Trump on Monday violated a long-established convention among presidents, which is to insist, at least in public, that our nation’s arms policies are shaped strictly by national security concerns.
If a decision is made to supply some faraway country with a dozen new fighter jets, let’s say, the custom is to present this as a strategic move to enhance global security, even as all the executives at Northrop Grumman or Boeing break out the champagne.
But Trump talked like an arms merchant. Ever the businessman, he couldn’t help himself. The only real surprise is that he said aloud what others in Washington say only in private.
The United States is the world’s leading exporter of military armaments, responsible for almost 40 percent of all international major arms transfers from 2009 to 2016. U.S. exports are almost double the exports from the Russia, the next largest seller in the world.
At the same time, federal campaign contributions from defense contractors increased from about $6.5 million in 1990 to almost $30 million in 2016. Northrop Grumman has led the way for the current election cycle beginning this year, with $1,367,000 in contributions this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a watchdog group. Northrup Grumman is followed by Lockheed Martin with $1,191,000, and Boeing with $1,060,000.
The defense industry, one of the most politically powerful sectors in Washington, also maintains a massive lobbying presence.
In his farewell address in 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned of the danger of conflating what’s best for America with what’s best for the weapons industry.
“In the councils of government,” Eisenhower said, “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.”
When Trump pushes Japan to spend $1 billion or more on an anti-missile battery, what’s foremost in his mind? Global security or American corporate profits?
On Monday, he confused the issue. But the answer to that question, more widely, has always been uncertain.
Send letters to: letters@suntimes.com.
