A
Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Georgian Forum
by
Robert Higgs
by Robert Higgs
DIGG THIS
Well, maybe
it's not really so funny, especially if someone you care about has
been killed or wounded in the recent fray in the South
Caucasus, but corporate shareholders who are heavily invested
in U.S. military-contractor stocks are laughing all the way to the
bank. In their world, nothing makes for success as much as a little
shooting and looting in a U.S. client state next door to Russia.
Everyone who
has spent more than five minutes perusing the data
on U.S. military contracts understands that the big bucks are
still to be made in the production of high-tech, cutting-edge, whiz-bang
weapons platforms of the sort that enriched several generations
of contractors during the Cold War. But – damn it! – the Cold War
had the impudence to dry up and blow away back in the early 1990s,
seemingly never to return. Of course, the contractors could always
direct their wiles and their lobbying budgets toward reminding members
of Congress that we never know when another Big Bad Enemy will pop
up. For a while China was the favorite emerging threat to serve
up at defense-industry banquets and military-association get-togethers.
Yet, coming up with a truly convincing replacement for the USSR
proved to be an extraordinarily difficult task. China appeared to
be more interested in supplying Wal-Mart and bankrolling the U.S.
Treasury than in attacking the United States.
The onset of
the war in Iraq diverted the defense-industry boys from their usual
fun and games, but only slightly. Although KBR, Blackwater, Dyncorp,
Bechtel, Fluor, Triple Canopy, and many others have made a killing
in Iraq, the truly humongous proceeds in military contracting continue
to be made by bending metal for aircraft, ships, missiles, satellites,
and combat vehicles and by supplying the countless related items
of software, maintenance, remodeling, upgrading, training, and so
forth that can keep one of these big projects going strong for decades
in a sole-source, competition-free environment with limitless potential
for engineering change orders – "contract nourishment," as it's
known in the trade. (The B-52
project, for example, has been going strong for more than 60
years and has no end in sight. If you are a U.S. taxpayer, the Boeing
Company says thank you very much.)
The Russians
have not been very cooperative about reviving the Cold War. Not
that they've demonstrated themselves to be Mr. Nice Guys, especially
in Chechnya, but in their relations with the West, they've shown
more interest in soliciting foreign investment, exporting oil and
gas, and purchasing mansions in Cyprus than in nuking London and
Washington. It's true – and a fact that bears more repeating – that
they still possess thousands of nuclear weapons and the missiles
to deliver them accurately anywhere on earth within the next hour.
But since the USSR's demise, they have not been talking menacingly
enough to maintain the Russian threat as a terribly serious fear
in the minds of American taxpayers.
Which brings
us back to the little nation-state known as Georgia. Let's gather
around the map
and see where this faraway country is located. Ah, yes, there it
is, wedged inconspicuously between Turkey and Russia at the eastern
end of the Black Sea. How many of you have visited there? None of
you! Well, that's not surprising, I suppose, because very few Americans
have ever taken any interest in this inconsequential and uninviting
place, which is best known as the birthplace of Iosef Vissarionovich
Dzhugashvili, an ambitious fellow who later changed his name to
Joseph Stalin and became fairly well known.
In the South
Caucasus, many of the people do not, shall we say, get along with
one another very well. Indeed, given half a chance, they will cut
one another's throats. Their ethnic feuding would scarcely bring
them onto the U.S. radar screen, however, except that the Caspian
basin has many producing oil wells, and a pipeline
has been built through Georgia that allows the oil to be brought
from Caspian Sea sources to western markets without passing through
Russia. The people who occupy high offices in the Defense Department,
the State Department, and the Office of the Vice President admire
this feature of Georgia. So, to no one's great surprise, they set
out some time ago to cultivate "democracy" in this remote little
corner of the world, and lo and behold, they succeeded in putting
their sonofabitch in office as the duly elected president. This
sort of thing is all in a day's work for U.S. foreign policy makers,
but this time it has turned out to yield an extraordinarily huge,
unexpected dividend.
Because on
the night of August 7, 2008, said sonofabitch, one Mikhail Saakashvili,
took it upon himself to send armed troops into a small region known
as South Ossetia (pop. 70,000), where the people had declared their
independence from Georgia in the early 1990s and afterward had maintained
a semi-autonomous political existence with Russian and Georgian
peacekeepers in attendance to preserve the existing arrangement
pending a more definite resolution of the matter. The locals, most
of whom are said to prefer Russia to Georgia, fled the Georgian
invaders, and the next day the Russian army moved swiftly into Georgia
with considerable force, routing the Georgian troops and later roaming
freely across the country to teach the upstart Georgians a lesson.
The U.S. government
and its lap dogs in the so-called news media immediately set up
a howl about the Russian campaign in Georgia and proceeded to make
all sorts of veiled and not-so-veiled threats about U.S. countermeasures.
Anyone with an ounce of strategic education could see, however,
that the United States occupied a very weak position in this situation.
Short of nuking the Russkies, the U.S. military had little capacity
to defend the Georgians, and even attempting to do so would have
ranked among the stupidest foreign-policy blunders of all time.
The realities of the situation, however, did nothing to moderate
the tremendous volume of huffing and puffing that the president,
the secretary of state, and the talk-radio buffoons from coast to
coast spewed out.
This blustering
has had an effect on the climate of opinion, and hence on members
of Congress, who are always looking for the main chance. Which returns
us to our central theme: how to get filthy rich selling useless
Cold War types of weapons to a captive market of U.S. taxpayers.
In a Wall Street
Journal article
dated August 16, 2008, reporter August Cole does not mince words:
"Russia's attack on Georgia has become an unexpected source of support
for big U.S. weapons programs, including flashy fighter jets and
high-tech destroyers, that have had to battle for funding this year
because they appear obsolete for today's conflicts with insurgent
opponents." As Cole elaborates, "Some Wall Street stock analysts
early on saw the invasion as reason to make bullish calls on the
defense sector." One wonders what was wrong with the analysts who
did not make bullish calls.
Still, we're
all economic scientists here, so let's check the data. Consider
Lockheed Martin, for example, the nation's leading defense company
and the prime contractor for the F-22 fighter – as pure a Cold
War weapon as you'll ever find. Lockheed
Martin's shares had been fetching about $104, plus or minus
$5, for the past year. On August 7, the day before the Russians
began their counterattack, the stock closed at $108.29. Eight days
later, on August 15, it closed at $116.67, giving shareholders a
tidy capital gain of 7.7 percent, or roughly 350 percent on an annualized
basis – a rate of return that even the most successful Wall
Street titan can appreciate.
Lest
we be suspected of cherry picking the data, let us consider the
Philadelphia stock exchange's defense
sector index, which includes the prices of seventeen major aerospace
and defense companies, including Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop
Grumman, General Dynamics, and Raytheon, the leaders of this hungry
wolf pack. On August 7, the index closed at $365.59. Eight days
later, on August 15, it closed at $382,50, up
4.6 percent, or about 210 percent on an annualized basis.
Of
course, post hoc ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy, and
perhaps these stock-price jumps were entirely coincidental. But
I don't think so. They seem to me to have solid economic logic and
ample historical experience behind them. Stockholders have been
down this road many times before; they know that flare-ups such
as the violent episode in Georgia increase the likelihood that Congress
will add money to the military budget for big-ticket weapons. When
the Russian bear growls, U.S. defense-sector investors break out
the champagne and frolic along Wall Street.
Yes, in the
South Caucasus hundreds of people have been killed, and thousands
have been displaced from their homes. Much property has been destroyed
or looted. Isn't all this a small price to pay, however, to keep
the mighty U.S. military industry firing on all cylinders? Let's
face it: Georgia (pop. 4.6 million) is an insignificant backwater
of little consequence to anybody but the people who live there and
the pseudo-capitalists who've run pipelines through it. The country's
GDP
is about $20 billion, not even enough to buy a dozen B-2
bombers. But a tense confrontation between the Russians and
the U.S. government is worth hundreds of billions to investors and
other stakeholders in the military-industrial-congressional complex.
August
23, 2008
Robert
Higgs [send him mail] is
senior fellow in political economy at the Independent
Institute and editor of The
Independent Review. He
is also a columnist for LewRockwell.com. His
most recent book is Neither
Liberty Nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government.
He is also the author of Depression,
War, and Cold War: Studies in Political Economy, Resurgence
of the Warfare State: The Crisis Since 9/11 and Against
Leviathan: Government Power and a Free Society.
Copyright
© 2008 Robert Higgs
Robert
Higgs Archives
|