During my early years in journalism, I interviewed Dr Mubashir Hassan, a founding member of the PPP. We discussed his differences with Z A Bhutto, the policy of nationalisation, Murtaza Bhutto’s assassination, the changing character of the PPP, allegations that he had deserted the populist leader and the corruption of politicians. Our discussion also ranged over global capitalism and its contradictions, as well as the collapse of the socialist bloc.
Towards the end, the conversation turned to the ideas of Karl Kautsky, one of the leading Marxist ideologues of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, whose book ‘The Economic Doctrines of Karl Marx’ was long regarded as one of the best works on the subject. Kautsky’s ideas created the impression that capitalism might have adopted peaceful modes of development. He appeared to believe that, since global capitalism had spread its tentacles into every corner of the world, large-scale conflicts would be difficult to sustain, as they could destroy the massive investments Western capitalists had made worldwide.
This was essentially a liberal economic view. I questioned him: if this were the case, why had the world witnessed more than 280 major and minor conflicts since World War II, and why had European capitalists destroyed one another during World War I, when Kautsky was still alive? Hassan argued that in modern times, wars and conflicts had become one of the biggest sources of investment opportunities.
If one reflects on this claim, it appears to hold. Conflicts first create opportunities for weapons manufacturers and oil conglomerates that profit enormously from cycles of death and destruction. They also open doors to a wide range of other businesses, including consumer-goods manufacturers and service providers. At its peak in 2011, for instance, 130,000 Nato troops were deployed in Afghanistan. They required fast food and other meals, coffee, tea, tissues, soap and countless everyday items.
For transportation, they needed thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of vehicles both large and small. As an occupying force, they required fortified garrisons with thick walls capable of withstanding attacks. These zones required CCTV cameras and advanced surveillance systems. Because the invaders did not speak local languages, vast opportunities emerged for translators and interpreters, while intelligence networks could not have been consolidated without recruiting local operatives.
The war may have left millions of Afghans helpless. The invaders may have eventually shaken hands with their sworn enemies. It may have ushered in an era of oppression and injustice for ordinary Afghans. The withdrawal may have eased the lives of Americans and Western populations while turning Afghan lives into a living hell. Yet consider the scale of opportunity this conflict created for security firms, vehicle manufacturers and catering companies.
The same logic applies to Iraq, where 160,000 coalition troops from the US and its allies were deployed. Imagine their daily needs. It is hardly surprising that companies ranging from General Electric to food chains, surveillance equipment manufacturers and even water suppliers benefited immensely. The conflict resulted in the deaths of more than 2.5 million people and displaced over 20 million across the region.
The conflict in Gaza may have killed more than 70,000 people. It may have reduced every inch of what is often described as the world’s largest open-air prison to rubble. It may be remembered for the callous targeting of children and for bombardment on a scale that shocked millions, perhaps billions, across the world. Yet what pacifists often fail to see is the profit it has generated for dozens of Western and Israeli companies, some of which are reportedly planning real-estate projects.
Other wars and episodes of destruction have also become sources of immense profit for MNCs. The World Bank estimates that Syria will require between $141 billion and $343 billion for reconstruction, whereas the Syrian government believes the figure could be closer to $1 trillion. A country that has seen the displacement of 11 million people and the deaths of over 550,000 now needs its roads rebuilt and its schools and hospitals rehabilitated or reconstructed. It also requires water, sanitation and power generation systems, which translates into lucrative opportunities for global capital.
The very forces that unleashed terror on the Syrian population are now seeking engagement with the powers that helped destroy the country in the first place. Western companies are weighing whether to participate in reconstruction projects announced by the Syrian government, starting with an initial $14 billion for which memoranda of understanding have already been signed, or to wait for further concessions from former extremist actors now occupying corridors of power in Damascus.
Western leaders may publicly mourn the devastation of Ukraine, but in reality the prospect of economic opportunity has triggered quiet euphoria. Estimates by the UN and the EU suggest that Ukraine may require $524 billion over the next decade.
The story does not end there. Since October 7 (2023), the US has spent $33.77 billion in aid to Israel, military action in Yemen and preparations for a wider regional conflict, according to the Watson Institute at Brown University. The institute has also reported that between 2020 and 2024, private security firms received $2.4 trillion in Pentagon contracts, representing roughly 54 per cent of the department’s discretionary spending of $4.4 trillion.
To grasp the scale of investment tied to wars, conflicts and reconstruction, one must consider the staggering $24 trillion that the US has spent on such ventures since World War II. It is deeply troubling that this destructive enterprise has become one of the world’s largest sources of employment. Every $1 million in military spending creates only five jobs. This has entrenched a dependence among Western working classes on the arms industry, prompting fierce resistance to any attempt to cut military budgets or shut down weapons factories that fuel death and destruction across the globe.
It is worth emphasising that the same $1 million invested elsewhere could generate far more employment: nearly 13 jobs in education, nine in healthcare and seven to eight in infrastructure and clean energy.
The writer is a freelance journalist who can be reached at: [email protected]
