U.S. ARMS CONTROL POLICY: CONGRESSIONAL CONSTRAINT OR MIC BUSINESS AS USUAL?

Abstract

This paper entertains the possibility that a military-industrial complex does in fact exist; that it is not constrained by Congress; that arms policy continues to serve this complex; and that in fact, Congress legitimates MIC activity through ritualistic conflict. Laurance's hypothesis that Congress has recently taken a more active role in the policy process is challenged. Using Yarmolinsky's broader conception ofarms policy, it is argued that arms policy has not significantly changed even though Congressional action has become more conflictual. Finally, it is argued that the changed Congressional role is best understood in terms ofEdelman's reversal ofsystems theory.