Skip to content
Backstage Politics

The national security complex

 

The shadow government, the double government, the deep State are different names many people use to refer to the national security complex. It is the real power that works behind the scenes out of the public eye. Here, you’ll find out what it really is.

 

Introduction

 

Today, I want to speak to you about the national security complex. It’s always said there is a power in the dark that runs important affairs of the public life. Unnamed people, we’ve never heard about that always stay away from the spotlight. Many conspiracy theories depict a reality in which a few powerful people control the country, and work together in secrecy. However, the national security complex has nothing to do with conspiracy theories, and it’s in plain sight. Although its operations are mostly secret, we can analyze its functions, and the role it plays in national politics.

So, in this episode, I’ll start the discussion by setting forth what the national security complex is. This explanation will take into account the historical development of this structure. That will lead us to analyze its power and how that power reflects on domestic politics.

 

The origins of the national security complex

 

When we talk about this complex, we have to address the circumstances that made possible its emergence. It’s essential to carry out this task if we want to understand it properly.

Despite the specific context of every country, we can make some generalizations that are valid for all nations. And that’s going to be my approach in this discussion.

The first thing I have to talk about is modernity. That’s because, in the early modern age, it emerged a new sort of State that developed new structures. This process happened in Western Europe, but the pass of time turned it into a global phenomenon.

The main feature of modernity considered in political terms is the growth of the State and the leading role of militarism. Indeed, militarism propelled that growth with massive effects at all levels of society. The international geopolitical competition between great powers in Europe boosted this process. Monarchs looked for raising funds for expanded armies, and that caused the growth of the State and its influence in all spheres.

It was a bloody process that developed through warfare. The emergence of a new bureaucracy to fulfill the State security requirements was decisive. The security needs were related to the daunting task of supplying large standing armies. The organization and extraction of resources on a broader scale contributed steadily to the birth of this bureaucracy. It entailed the concentration of vast powers thanks to its expanded organizational capacities.

Depending on each country’s inner circumstances this process followed a specific trajectory. Aside from these particularities, all States went through this path of warfare and bureaucratic expansionism. They were two sides of the same process that led the State to its apotheosis as the central institution of society.

These changes needed justification. The State historically has come forward as a security provider. Therefore, the development of means to accomplish that task has been logical. The State has depicted itself in a paternalistic way as the protector of society. Its stated purpose as a defender of the community has made it appeared a benevolent institution. That’s the way of building legitimacy and achieving people’s cooperation.

War made the State, and the State made war. That could summarize all I discussed so far. However, it’s necessary to take a look at the power structures that emerged in this process. That means to identify and analyze them. In other words, I’m going to answer the question of what the national security complex is.

 

The national security complex

 

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were decisive for the formation of the national security complex. Until then, the State structures were mostly a few, such as the military, the treasury, justice courts, and the officials of the central government. As a result of the new dynamic initiated during the French revolution, the States strengthened their institutions to increase the control of the resources available in their territories. I mean material or economic resources, but also human resources. That involved a new expansion of State structures. In these two centuries, society witnessed the emergence of a political juggernaut vested with more powers than ever.

The technological progress contributed to this process, and States gained ground in the control of multiple spheres. It was the consequence of intense rivalries on the uneasy international geopolitical stage. Security requirements led to the formation of larger and more powerful armies, and also new bureaucracies, such as foreign affairs offices, new law enforcement agencies, and the new secret services.

International competition justified these innovations, but there were domestic requirements to maintain political order at home. We can’t overlook the role of industrialization and the rise of capitalism, particularly during the nineteenth century. It happened with social turmoil and a lot of conflicts that posed a threat to State stability. Insofar as this conflictive atmosphere could undermine the international efforts of States in their competition, critical changes were implemented in this realm.

Industrial warfare was a tipping point regarding the emergence of a national security complex. That was because of technological innovations in military affairs and economic needs to support more powerful armies. Organizational needs increased dramatically, and it contributed to strengthening the State power in all fields. And security gained weight in the State structures.

Modernization in politics has resulted in a permanent expansion of the State, and its strengthening in power terms. Another watershed in this process was the two world wars. In any case, warfare has been, and it still is, a stimulus for the appearance and development of the national security complex. In this respect, internal and external threats have been the primary justification of its existence.

WWII was decisive for some countries, such as the US. In this case, we see how this war boosted the formation of this complex, as well as the international contest between great powers. The military became in that country the most powerful institution by concentrating a vast amount of resources. At the end of WWII, it had 15 million soldiers, and its international presence was overwhelming, with hundreds of bases all around the world. Indeed, the US economy represented the largest share of the world GDP. The new leading role on the international stage gave rise to increasing importance to security institutions to ensure the national interest. Their stated mission was to protect the country from its enemies.

The US case is the clearest on this because after WWII emerged a broad structure of organisms, agencies, and departments related to the security complex. The new situation made some legislative arrangements necessary to adjust this reality to the constitutional order. For this purpose, legislators passed the National Security Act of 1947, and it had a profound effect on the American political system. It involved a power shift in the federal government insofar as the military has been since then on under the control of the Department of Defense. Indeed, the Secretary of Defense doesn’t have much authority, and he depends on those who, in theory, are his subordinates. That reflects the power generals have concentrated in the federal government, up to the point of having the capacity to manipulate domestic politics.

Besides the military, we find other relevant institutions, such as the intelligence agencies. They constitute the intelligence community, and we don’t have a figure of how many agencies of this kind are in the US. As far as we know, there are 17 intelligence agencies at the federal level. Still, this figure is far away from reflecting reality. I mean by this that there are many more, at least if we take into account those units of different branches of the same organization. That is the case of the Department of Defense and its armies, but also the FBI, and so on.

Other relevant institutions that constitute the national security complex are the law enforcement agencies. Although there are some specific agencies whose functions are law enforcement, such as the FBI, other departments develop law enforcement activities in their fields. I refer to institutions, such as the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the Treasury, the Department of Energy, and many more. This situation is due to the role of the executive branch in the constitutional government. So, it’s in charge of overseeing compliance with laws. I’m talking not only about police officers but also about inspectors and other supervisors who perform these tasks. Anyways, the most relevant agencies are under the authority of the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security.

Finally, I have to mention the role of the Department of State. It’s in charge of managing and developing the foreign affairs of the US. Even though its role in domestic politics may seem less relevant than the former institutions, it has a profound impact. As I discussed on another occasion, international relations influence on domestic politics because of security needs.

The diplomatic corps performs representative functions abroad, and it’s authorized to reach agreements with other countries and international institutions. This activity ends up influencing domestic politics when treaties, deals, or foreign policies come to Congress for its approval. Furthermore, these measures on the world stage require the necessary support to carry them out. That means the adjustment of internal conditions, namely, domestic policies, to the needs of the foreign policy.

We’ve seen what institutions constitute the national security complex. Due to their composition and size, they are impersonal organizations. Nevertheless, we shouldn’t overlook that there is a power elite that directs them.

I don’t want to go into the sociologic dimension of the social group that commands these organizations. That’s something Charles Wright Mills analyzed in depth. I only want to add that they constitute a power elite, as Mills himself called them. They have the same social background, and their members have multiple personal bonds at different levels. That, with their mindset, makes them an exclusive group with much influence in American politics.

 

The influence of the national security complex on domestic politics

 

In theory, the role of this complex is to protect the country against internal and external threats. However, that’s only in theory because reality is quite different.

In practice, we see a different thing. Ant this is valid for all countries, not only the US. Elected officials don’t make important decisions, but those who command the institutions I mentioned before. I refer to directors of intelligence and law enforcement agencies, high-rank officials of the diplomatic corps, generals, judges, and so on.

As I discussed on another occasion, presidents and heads of government are spokespersons of those who make decisions. The reality is evident if we take into account the vast resources of the institutions I mentioned. For instance, the Department of Defense has a budget of over 700 billion dollars, which is roughly as large as the Turkish economy. Besides, it has manpower of 1.3 million people. Its influence is overwhelming by dominating national politics with the adjustment of society to its needs.

I have to say something similar about intelligence agencies that carry out undercover activities. Besides, there is also the diplomatic corps that directs the foreign relations of the nation. They all make decisions by themselves due to their high autonomy, and the sensitive matters they deal with every day. Elected officials prefer to defer to these bureaucrats rather than taking on any further responsibility. And the legislative branch doesn’t oversight their activities but protects these institutions by staying them and their officers away from the public eye.

At this point we wonder, what are their functions? They belong to unelected structures that unelected officials rule. They constitute the coercive power of the State, and because of their position, they have their interests. And their interests identify with the national interest, and this one with the national security. So, they defend their interests. That means the defense of the power structures they rule, and the social order they impose. After all, they are an exclusive social group that constitutes the ruling elite.

 

Question of the day

 

Question of the day! Do you think this situation can be amended? If so, explain how. Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.

Bibliography used:

Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State

Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History

Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze

Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992

Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power

Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State

Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618

Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors

Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media

Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence

Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.