Sylvia Demarest: US Militarism and Military Keynesianism – Part I of II
By Sylvia Demarest, Substack, 6/4/25
Sylvia Demarest is a retired trial lawyer.
Recent events crystalize the growing risk of a global war, World War 3 (WW3). Some believe WW3 has already started, and point to the many smaller skirmishes that preceded formal declarations of war in World War’s 1 and 2. If so, WW3 has been going on for a very long time, perhaps back to the first Gulf War in 1990-91 that ended the “Vietnam Syndrome,” or to the NATO bombing of Serbia (then part of Yugoslavia) in 1999) reflecting US intention to contain Russia. The previous world wars were horribly destructive, but weapons technology has become even more dangerous since WW2. Given the destructive power of modern weapons, the thought of fighting a global war is clinically insane; the risk to civilization is much too great, yet current western leadership is actively discussing just such a war.
World War 2 and the adoption of military Keynesianism is credited with ending the Great Depression and providing the economic stimulus for several decades of economic growth after WW2. Militarism and military Keynesianism is a powerful economic and political force in the US. The policy of militarism and war is supported by both political parties and has persisted, election after election, for decades– yes, it’s always the same boss!
This essay will also explore a few examples of past US militarism and military Keynesianism; the next essay will look at how human biases, censorship, and propaganda contribute to this endless cycle of war.
Military Keynesianism
Before World War 2 the United States always demilitarized at the end of every war, including World War 1. The issues surrounding the return and demobilization of 2 million troops from Europe after World War 1 created huge issues, including economic dislocations. Many veterans faced issues with unemployment and readjusting to economic life. The difficulties faced in adjusting from a wartime to a peacetime economy “would have lasting implications for U.S. military policy and society in the decades ahead.”
The first public reference to “military Keynesianism” was on January 5, 1938, in a column in the New Republic by John T. Flynn. Flynn was convinced that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was plotting to involve the US in a foreign war to stimulate the US economy. Flynn, a well-known progressive journalist at the time, observed that in 1937 a new downturn in the US economy had sent unemployment soaring to the same level as the beginning of the Great Depression. Flynn stated that a top Roosevelt advisor had advocated a large dose of military spending i.e. “military Keynesianism”, and a major foreign war as the way to cure the nation’s economic problems.
The Great Depression had witnessed the collapse of the money supply when thousands of banks failed, companies closed, unemployment soared, and prices fell. When WW2 ended, the return of deflation was feared when the nation demobilized. There were over 12 million Americans in the armed services and many of these men wanted “to be home by Christmas”. The issue was resolved by a combination of social legislation to support and ease the transition to civilian life along with a commitment to continued militarism.
World War 2 finally ended the Great Depression. Economic relief began as orders from Europe and Asia provided an economic lift. After the US entered the war, military spending exploded, rising 600 percent from June 1940 to 1941, reaching 42 percent of GDP by 1943–44. Even though fifteen million workers entered the military, the economy expanded at its highest rate ever: real GDP jumped 54 percent from 1939 to 1944, and unemployment reached a historical low of 1.2 percent.
The US continued to benefit economically after the war ended. WW2 had devastated the economies and productive capacity of Europe and Japan, leaving US productive capacity unscathed. After years of economic rationing, Americans were ready to spend their money and US factories shifted from war to peacetime production providing employment to returning veterans. The US experienced several decades of exceptional economic growth, along with huge gains in employment and wages. War and military Keynesianism had been characterized by both “guns and butter,” along with at least twenty major technological innovations the war produced that were quickly applied to civilian life. Rather than being a “burden,” the establishment of military Keynesianism in this unique historical context—witnessed a large military budget that produced capital formation, employment, and technological dynamism. This is why many politicians today still see war as a “fix” for economic problems. In a world encumbered by slow economic growth and high debt levels the idea that war is a solution to political and economic problems is adding to the impetus for a new global war.
The huge economic surge that followed the end of WW2 permanently changed the US. The US became a consumer society as ordinary people were molded into consumers with an unquenchable thirst for more stuff. This was the perfect environment for the neoliberal ideology, discussed in previous essays, to become dominant, and to consume politics and economics.
Military Keynesianism has been used as an economic stimulus and a jobs program ever since. The production of weapons and equipment is one of the largest remaining manufacturing industries in the US. Congress has been careful to locate bases and production facilities in each district, spreading the funding and the jobs around the country. US militarism is an economic stimulus program, a jobs program, and a source of lobbying and campaign cash. This means that militarism, and the wars that support it, has enormous economic and political power in the USA, even though maintaining it requires perpetual war.
For military Keynesianism to work its economic and political magic, the United States needs to use up the military equipment it produces so the arms manufacturers can keep busy. This is why the US is the world’s largest seller of weapons, and why every US president is an arms dealer. Even with these arms sales, military Keynesianism requires the US to fight a war every two, or three years, or to be continuously at war.
A few examples of militarism in action
1–The Korean War–1950-53–The Korean war began in June of 1950 and lasted until July of 1953. It was fought between North Korea, supported by China and the Soviet Union, and South Korea backed by UN forces and the United States. On June 25th 75,000 North Korean soldiers crossed the 38th parallel. The country had been divided at that level in August of 1945 by two young aides at the US State Department. Rather than seeing this as a war between two unstable dictatorships, Syngman Rhee (south) and Kim Il Sung (north), the US feared it was a first step in a Communist campaign to take over the world. The fighting went back and forth, with a huge loss of life, until a stalemate was reached and the fighting was ended at the same place with the addition of a demilitarized zone.
What most Americans do not know is that the US bombed and napalmed cities and towns all across North Korea. US bombers faced little opposition as North Korea lacked air defenses. During the campaign, conventional weapons such as explosives, incendiary bombs, and napalm destroyed nearly all of the country’s cities and towns, including an estimated 85% of its buildings. The U.S. dropped 635,000 tons of bombs, including 32,557 tons of napalm, during the war on both North and South Korea. In May 1951, an international fact finding team from East Germany, West Germany, China, and the Netherlands stated, “The members, in the whole course of their journey, did not see one town that had not been destroyed, and there were very few undamaged villages. It is estimated that 20% of the population of North Korea perished. The American people may not have realized it, but major war crimes were committed by the US air force in North Korea. The North Korean people have not forgotten. The Kim family is still in power and have used these war crimes to remain in power.
2–The Vietnam War–1954-1975– This war represents perhaps an even greater tragedy than does the Korean War because it impacted not only Vietnam but all the surrounding countries. It began with an independence movement against the French and ended with the defeat of the US military. This war also impacted the US through the creation of a large anti-war movement that objected to the draft and the brutality of this war, adding to the pressure to end the war. There are dozens of books written about this war so this comment will be brief. The Vietnamese were fighting for independence and sovereignty, but their struggle got caught up in the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.
The human costs of the long conflict were harsh for all involved. Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters. The U.S. military has estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 South Vietnamese soldiers died in the war. In 1982 the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was dedicated in Washington, D.C., inscribed with the names of 57,939 members of U.S. armed forces who had died or were missing as a result of the war. Over the following years, additions to the list have brought the total past 58,200. (At least 100 names on the memorial are those of servicemen who were Canadian citizens.) Among other countries that fought for South Vietnam on a smaller scale, South Korea suffered more than 4,000 dead, Thailand about 350, Australia more than 500, and New Zealand some three dozen.
The public reaction to the war resulted in the Vietnam Syndrome. The Vietnam Syndrome is a term used to describe the growing public aversion to US military involvement abroad that arose from controversies that surrounded the Vietnam war. It reflected the public’s reaction to the negative experiences and outcome of the war and reflected public opposition to US involvement in military actions without clear objectives.
3–The Church Committee 1975–The Church Committee was a committee of the US Senate established in 1975 to investigate abuses by the intelligence agencies such as the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The committee uncovered serious misconduct including illegal surveillance of American citizens and plots abroad involving regime change operations, coups, and assassinations. The Committee’s publications can be found here. In total, the Committee published 14 reports in 1975 and 1976 that contain a wealth of information on abuses by US intelligence agencies. This included U.S. involvement in attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, particularly Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, the Diem brothers of Vietnam, and General Rene Schneider of Chile. It also contains findings on the development of a general “Executive Action” capability by the CIA i.e. an in house assassination team.
The Committees findings came from the acquisition of what was called “the family jewels”. The reports that constitute the CIA’s “Family Jewels” were commissioned in 1973 by then CIA director James R. Schlesinger in response to press accounts of CIA involvement in the Watergate scandal—in particular, support to the burglars, E. Howard Hunt and James McCord, both CIA veterans. On May 7, 1973, Schlesinger signed a directive commanding senior officers to compile a report of current or past CIA actions that may have fallen outside the agency’s charter. The resulting report, which was in the form of a 693-page loose-leaf book of memos, was passed on to William Colby when he succeeded Schlesinger as Director of Central Intelligence in late 1973. That binder was acquired by the Church Committee. Most of the documents were released on June 25, 2007, after more than three decades of secrecy.
The First Gulf War 1990-1991 ends the Vietnam Syndrome
The Vietnam Syndrome lasted, with a few small exceptions, until the first Gulf war. This war was fought to eject Iraq from Kuwait. It was also conducted in a way to end the public’s reluctance to support foreign wars i.e. the “Vietnam Syndrome.” This was accomplished by turning the war into a TV spectacle with video game type videos showing US precision laser guided weapons going into chimneys to blow up buildings. A huge invasion force was organized by the US, Iraq was ejected, and militarism and foreign wars were suddenly back in vogue.
The war ended on the highway of death, when the retreating Iraqi forces were attacked and destroyed.
But it took 911 and the announcement of the “war on terror” to regenerate the current cycle of war and the endless series of ongoing wars in the Middle East and East Asia. These wars include the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, the overthrow of Qaddafi in Libya, the successful covert war against Bashir al Assad in Syria, the drone war in many countries, the constant bombing of Yemen, the ongoing US support for the genocide of Palestinians in Gaza, and the ethnic cleansing of the West Bank, the threats of war against Iran, and the US proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. US militarism is as active as ever.
Conclusion
Whether the blame falls on military Keynesianism, the Cold War, or the push for global hegemony, the US has been constantly at war since the end of WW2. Even though these wars were fought against countries that lacked modern military capacity, including reconnaissance, and air defenses, the US still did not “win” any of these wars, including the wars fought during the “War on Terror.”
The US is no longer the sole military power globally–both Russia and China should be seen as peer competitors. Today, the US is involved in a proxy war with Russia and threatens a “pivot to Asia” to confront China. Both Russia and China have military capabilities that are at least equivalent to the US. Even Iran has highly capable air and missile defenses.
Modern war requires the industrial capacity to rapidly produce the needed weapons, along with the ability to supply armies fighting thousands of miles away. The US no longer has the capacity to fight a long foreign war. Moreover, both Russia and China can bring the war to the US homeland. Yet these factors are ignored, and US militarism persists. One reason? The US is economically dependent on militarism.
The US military budget is set to grow by $150 billion to over $1 trillion under the Trump budget proposal. The US is preparing for more war.
The next essay will discuss the human biases along with the use of censorship and propaganda to create support for these wars.
