There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians, it is absolutely not a one-way street of control. This is the entire premise of the term military-industrial complex. Military will always advocate for itself to get more funding and more use (as in, bombing things). And it will continue to serve as a successful launching point for political careers. Not to mention all the companies, fat off of defense contracts, that heavily lobby the government same as any large corporation.
> There’s a clear feedback loop between the military and the politicians.
Definitely. I recommend H. R. McMaster's Dereliction Of Duty, which discusses how military leaders, many with political ambitions, helped to get the US into Vietnam.
You should read some memoires from higher-ups in the military instead of trying to lecture people about something you have no experience with. Military leaders will say they don't need more equipment, but politicians will spend a ton on it anyway because the equipment is built in their district. Military advice is often ignored by politicians in order to score political points, like when Obama ignored advice to increase military presence in Afghanistan to regain control, and instead let it drag on with insufficient resources, ensuring it was a waste of time and life.
Your example of military not advocating for increased use of itself is… Obama ignoring the military advocating for increased use of itself in Afghanistan?
I’ve read memoirs. Some interesting ones about the Vietnam war and how every military higher-up was champing at the bit to throw more troops into the meatgrinder.
My “experience with” this is watching the military incinerate orders of magnitude more taxes than I will pay in my entire life on useless bullshit as I walk past dozens of homeless people a day. Like that $80-150 million plane they threw in the drink just the other day. Real good stuff!
