The Government Thinks War is Great and Wants You to Think So Too - Here's Why:

 

    War is a bad thing, or so we have said for the last several centuries....Yet, despite this sentiment, we, the American people, keep finding ourselves smack dab in the middle of it. For the last 16 years, our leaders have entered office, promising the end of the war in Iraq and the removal of our troops from occupancy. Instead, we have seen the opposite. So, why? Why is it so hard for the government to avoid the pitfall of violence? Why do we as citizens not hear more and stronger voices against the topic? In this case, all roads lead back to the bank, not home, especially not for the troops. 

    Glory, patriotism, and power are all central drivers that can be said to explain why America remains in a constant state of fighting, but the largest proponent is money. Many argue that no one makes money in war, especially not with the military spending budget of the United States, but that is not 100% true. While the government itself may not be racking up the profits, certain members of Congress are doing just that. There are four major companies that run the manufacturing world for the defense of this country. Those businesses are Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics. The four powerhouses that head the game are known as defense contractors. These are people or companies that enter into contracts with the United States government and are paid to provide the military with the means to protect the nation. They are also four companies that trade on the stock market and have significant shareholders that are currently members of our Congress. The catch is that several of them are members with much power who sit on committees that determine the funding for the same defense companies in which they are investing. So, let's break this down. Members of Congress have the power to declare war on other countries. Members of Congress also manage the companies that work with the U.S. government to provide the supplies for said war. Members of Congress also are heavy investors in those same said companies. Members of Congress also make substantial six-figure profits from said investments. Therefore, why would they not want to be involved in war? If the people with the sole power to declare war are benefitting personally from it more than anyone else, then the incentive to withdraw occupancy from overseas is a lot lower than the what they lead us to think.

    With this understanding, there is also another question that is raised: Where are the antiwar voices and why do they not have a larger presence? The answer is somewhat complex. Antiwar voices are out in the world and online, but the media works to cover them up. This is done in very subtle ways. To recognize the most namely of those, we have to look at the last century. From WWI to the war in Afghanistan now, the news has played a significant role in painting a persona for the ideas of a soldier and war as a whole. There is now this connotation that it is connected with the duo that portrays both as honorable and a privilege to be able to fight for the name of the United States. A prime example of this is the propaganda created by the government to rally support for the war in the 1940's. 

    While in some respects that may be true, it creates a negative connotation on antiwar voices. As opposers of the concept entirely, they are portrayed as almost disrespectful and as unpatriotic towards the country because of their sentiments. Not only does this decrease their popularity, but also their foothold in the American media, ultimately hurting their ability to grow exponentially. 

References: 

https://prospect.org/power/the-members-of-congress-who-profit-from-war/