The affs neoliberal claims of boosting supplies justifies US interventionism that guarantees state collapse – turns case

Another aspect of the American military-industrial complex is the extent to which it arms the rest of the world. This could be due to unstated hegemonic policies or an extension of “American imperialism” as a government-coordinated strategy but given the influence of the military-industrial complex has with policymakers, it appears simply to be good business. A Congressional Research Service report in 2008 showed that $55.2 billion (US) in weapons deals were concluded globally in that year; and of that, the United States was responsible for $37.8 billion (US), or 68%.41The closest competitor was Italy, with $3.7 billion (US), or 6.7%. Export laws that can slow or block the sale of military technology have been under attack from lobbyists and willing government officials. In 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wanted to see “‘wholesale changes to the rules and regulations on government technology exports’ in the name of ‘competitiveness.’”42By taking advantage of the intimate relationship they have with the US government, American defense contractors are influencing policy to grow their business abroad. Coupled with this, in some cases the sale of arms to other nations promotes destabilization which is compatible with the spreading of neoliberalism.43The US-led coalition invasion of Iraq in 2003 stands out as clear evidence of the forced propagation of the neoliberal agenda. Efforts to find legitimate reasons to invade Iraq, such as the (fallacious) existence of a secret Iraqi program to develop and use weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s). This project failed, so President G. W. Bush sold the invasion as a mandate for freedom, announcing that “‘freedom is the Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world “and “as the greatest power on earth (the US has) an obligation to help the spread of freedom”.44What followed was a lightning-quick invasion of Iraq that penetrated Baghdad and toppled the government of Saddam Hussein. On September 19, 2003, Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority that replaced the Iraqi government, issued orders that included the following: full privatization of public enterprises; full ownership by foreign firms of Iraqi businesses; full repatriation of foreign profits; the opening of Iraq’s banks to foreign control; national treatment for foreign companies; and the elimination of nearly all trade barriers.45The orders applied to all areas of the economy except oil, which was exempted.46Further, a regressive “flat tax” was established, the right to strike was outlawed, and unions were banned in key sectors. The Iraqi interim government appointed in June 2004 was given no power to write new laws or change old ones; they could only work within the laws laid down by the Coalition Provisional Authority.47“What the US evidently sought to impose upon Iraq was a full-fledged neoliberal state apparatus whose fundamental mission was and is to facilitate conditions for profitable capital accumulation for all newcomers, Iraqi and foreigners alike.”48In Iraq and Afghanistan, the American military-industrial complex dramatically expanded the role of on-the-ground contractors to the point that in 2010, there were 262,681 contractors and assistance staff in these two countries,49which is greater than the number of US uniformed soldiers (154,000 as of December 2010)50deployed at the time. Of these employees, 47,282 (18%) were performing security functions.51It was estimated by the 2011 Commission on Wartime Contracting that at least $117 billion (US) was spent on or obligated to contractors between October 2001 and 2011.52One of the advantages of contractor manpower on the ground is that there is less political cost associated with them; the Secretary of Defense can say truthfully that they are drawing down troops in Iraq,53while leaving unsaid the number of contractors remaining in-country. In terms of headcount, contractors were the largest coalition contingent deployed. The American military-industrial complex not only provided the technical means to assure swift (initial) victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it also provided much of the manpower needed and has profited greatly from doing so, while facilitating an overt takeover of a wealthy nation and its transformation into a neoliberal state.