Who Wants War in Middle East? Lockheed Martin, Halliburton, Raytheon...

Some things never change.  Remember those quaint old concepts like “Conflict of interest?”  Or if you're old enough, you might remember a few of those hippie posters:  “War is unhealthy for children and other living things” and the tongue-in-cheek counterpart, “War is healthy for poster-makers and other living things.”  And don't forget “War is good business.  Invest your son.”

Fast-forward to 2015 (and without the satire/tongue-in-cheek factor):  War Is Healthy for Lockheed Stockholders and other trust-funded chickenhawks.

Lockheed Martin Executive Vice President Bruce Tanner told an audience of shareholders that they will see “indirect benefits” from the war in Syria, which will provide “an intangible lift because of the dynamics of that environment...”

The CEO of defense contractor Oshkosh beamed that sales opportunities are booming “with the ISIS threat growing.”

Raytheon Chief Executive Tom Kennedy is seeing “a significant uptick” for “defense solutions across the board in multiple countries in the Middle East...It’s all the turmoil they have going on, whether the turmoil’s occurring in Yemen, whether it’s with the Houthis, whether it’s occurring in Syria or Iraq, with ISIS.”

Now [ahem] the above quotes have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Congress has just authorized $607 billion in “defense” spending (or more accurately, taxpayer handouts for corporate chickenhawks).   As Lockheed's Welfare Recipient-in-Chief Bruce Tanner said:  “Move Along!  Nothing to see here! Our programs are well supported in the budget.  We think we did fare very well.”

And so it goes...