The Military-Industrial Complex and ‘The Blob’

The movie “The Blob” inspired various analogies in the context of political criticism in America. The most common and entrenched analogy likened The Blob to the foreign policy class of the American establishment. This comparison was made by Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter and Deputy National Security Advisor to former U.S. President Barack Obama. In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Rhodes referred to the bipartisan, established foreign policy class as “The Blob.”

THE MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX AND “THE BLOB”

During the heated period of the Cold War between the “U.S./West” and the “Soviet Union,” an intriguing and somewhat frightening film was released in 1958. Directed by Irvin Shortess Yeaworth, a German-American filmmaker, this movie is considered one of the first examples of the sci-fi horror genre and has earned its place as a cult classic.

The film, titled The Blob, starred the famous actor Steve McQueen in the lead role. The plot revolves around a gelatinous creature that crashes into a small American town along with a meteor from outer space.

When a curious elderly man touches the creature with a stick, a horrifying event unfolds. The old man is consumed by the shapeless jelly (the Blob) and dies. Steve McQueen’s character, Steven, and his girlfriend, Jane, witness the event by chance and are terrified. However, their warnings fall on deaf ears as no one in town, including the police, believes them. When the Blob begins devouring everything in its path, the truth of their warnings becomes apparent.

The Blob grows larger and more aggressive as it consumes everything it comes into contact with, and its originally pink color becomes increasingly red. The townspeople panic, unsure how to handle this monstrous entity, which eventually grows to the size of an apartment building.

The only thing capable of stopping the Blob is cold. It is discovered that exposure to cold immobilizes the Blob. Ultimately, the creature is neutralized and transported to the Arctic by an Air Force cargo plane. As long as the Arctic remains frozen, the Blob will pose no threat. The movie ends with the words “The End,” which ominously transform into a question mark (?). While the “Red Blob” has been removed, the danger has not been eradicated.

Some commentators believe the movie symbolizes the “Soviet threat” or the “Red threat.” America, they argue, would not be safe unless the enemy was kept “frozen” during the Cold War. Notably, while serving in Moscow, U.S. diplomat George Kennan sent a long secret telegram of 8,000 words to the State Department, outlining his view that the Soviet Union must be contained on all sides to prevent its expansion. These ideas formed the basis of the “Truman Doctrine,” associated with U.S. President Harry S. Truman.

During Truman’s presidency, fears were stoked that the Soviet Union would invade Western Europe and eventually attack the United States. Efforts to halt the spread of the “great red stain” of Soviet Communism became a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy throughout the forty years of the Cold War.

In his 1993 book Harry S. Truman and the Fear of War in 1948: A Successful Campaign to Deceive the Nation, American historian Frank Kofsky documented how U.S. foreign policy was shaped by Truman and his cabinet through “disinformation.” One goal of this approach was to exaggerate the “Soviet Scare” to funnel money into the military aviation industry and secure a larger budget for the Pentagon. Through disinformation, the American media was manipulated, and the concept of national security was employed without regard for the facts. According to U.S. military and civilian intelligence sources, there was no evidence that the Soviet Union posed a military threat. Yet, Congress and the media thought otherwise. Many American commentators believed that the Soviet Union posed a political and ideological threat, not a military one, but these voices were drowned out.

In the end, the “Soviet Scare” and the Cold War served as a subsidy for the growth of the American Military-Industrial Complex. The federal aviation budget increased by 57%, and the Pentagon’s budget grew by 30%. Over the long term, these defense budget increases fueled the growth of the Military-Industrial Complex, heightened the intensity of the Cold War, and triggered a frenzied arms race.

The Military-Industrial Complex was a byproduct of the militarization of the American economy and foreign policy. In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued a warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, which, while not labeled as “The Blob,” sought to infiltrate every branch of the federal government. Eisenhower may even have drawn inspiration from the 1958 film The Blob.

Details about The Blob’s director, Irvin Shortess Yeaworth, may also interest readers. Born in 1926, Yeaworth was among the “Evangelical Christian Zionists,” the staunchest non-Jewish supporters of Israel in the U.S. He directed over 400 educational and religious films, including television specials for Billy Graham, one of the most renowned and charismatic preachers among White Evangelical Christians. After retiring from filmmaking, Yeaworth spent the next 30 years, until his death in 2004, organizing Jerusalem tours for American Christian Zionists. These tours, which continue to this day, are a significant event for Christian Zionists. However, Yeaworth owes his fame to The Blob.

Alternate versions of The Blob were made in 1972 and 1988. Notably, the last version was released about three years before the Cold War ended. According to reports in the American media, preparations for a new version of The Blob have been underway for years, but disagreements have consistently delayed its production. A new version of The Blob could signify a new enemy.

WHO INVENTED THE BLOB?

The movie The Blob inspired various analogies in the context of political criticism in America. The most common and deeply rooted of these was the comparison of The Blob to the foreign policy class of the American establishment. This analogy was drawn by Ben Rhodes, a speechwriter and Deputy National Security Advisor to former U.S. President Barack Obama. In a 2016 interview with The New York Times, Rhodes referred to the bipartisan, entrenched foreign policy class as “The Blob.”

According to Rhodes, “The Blob” encompassed figures like Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates, as well as supporters of the Iraq War from both parties who incessantly lamented the decline of American security order in Europe and the Middle East. Thus, “The Blob” became a term used to describe the bureaucratic structure in Washington, D.C., that shaped U.S. foreign policy decisions but often showed little responsiveness to the will of the people or democratic oversight. Also referred to as “blobocracy,” this class or structure was closely associated with military interventions, foreign policy strategies, and policies, particularly in the Middle East during the Obama administration.

Criticism of The Blob often highlighted how this class’s foreign policy decisions were shaped by actors within the military bureaucracy, the State Department, and other institutions. It was argued that this class prioritized short-term military solutions over long-term strategic objectives. Moreover, The Blob was noted for its deep connections with lobbying groups and the Military-Industrial Complex. In fact, Rhodes used the term The Blob sarcastically to criticize attempts by the “Center-Left” or “Liberal Internationalist” hawks within the Washington foreign policy establishment to undermine some of Obama’s policies. Rhodes reacted strongly to these efforts, which he saw as tying the hands of the Obama administration. The Blob, in turn, expressed discomfort with the administration’s pivot toward alternative options and strategies in foreign policy.

Decision-makers and foreign policy elites in Washington consistently leaned toward wars and interventionist policies, often at odds with the broader interests of society. Even with new presidents and administrations, The Blob operated in much the same way, functioning as a power structure independent of the White House.

The actors that constitute “The Blob” include components of the Military-Industrial Complex, such as arms manufacturers, military leaders, intelligence agencies, diplomats, and think tanks focused on national security and defense. Academics and journalists were also part of this class. These actors argued for the necessity of global military interventions.

A perpetual state of war allowed the Military-Industrial Complex to grow increasingly powerful, fueled by American taxpayer dollars, and to sustain a foreign policy centered on military interventions. This approach simultaneously militarized both foreign policy and the American economy.

Critics of The Blob argued that every new president came into office with innovative ideas about foreign policy but was invariably forced by The Blob to maintain interventionist policies. As a result, The Blob became the greatest obstacle to meaningful policy change.

The Blob also fostered the perception that the U.S. was an exceptional global power, without which the world would descend into chaos. This perspective made it imperative for the U.S. to continually project its military power. This approach, which framed all global problems as “military problems,” was perpetuated by the rhetoric of “peace through strength.” According to this belief, diplomacy had to be backed by the threat of force to achieve results. Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright summarized this stance succinctly: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are an indispensable nation. We stand tall, and unlike other countries, we see further ahead, and we see the danger here for all of us.”

One striking characterization of The Blob’s influence and persistence over American administrations came from Russian President Vladimir Putin. In a 2017 exclusive interview with the French newspaper Le Figaro, Putin described how U.S. presidents conducted foreign policy with the following words:
“I have spoken to three U.S. presidents so far. They come and go, but the policy remains the same. Do you know why? Because of the strong bureaucracy. When a person is elected, they may have some ideas. Then the men with briefcases come, well-dressed, wearing dark suits like mine, except for the red tie; they wear black or navy-blue ties. These men start explaining how things should be done. And suddenly everything changes.”

THE BLOB’S CORE BELIEFS

American political scientist Prof. Christopher Fettweis described The Blob as “the official mind of U.S. national security” in his 2023 article, The Blob’s Beliefs, published in ORBIS, a journal of the Philadelphia-based Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI). According to Fettweis, The Blob is not a group of individuals but a mindset—one based on several core assumptions about the world and the United States’ role in it.

Fettweis summarized The Blob’s beliefs in six key points. The first was: “As an indispensable nation, the United States must lead the world.” What most clearly set the U.S. apart from other nations, according to this belief, was a sense of “destiny” or the call of history. The Blob’s second core belief was encapsulated in the statement: “The world is dangerous.” This could be understood as viewing the world as a jungle filled with threats, where peace is merely a pause in “eternal wars.”

The third belief was: “Our opponents are realists.” This meant that the United States is guided by principles in its decisions, while its competitors act solely in their self-interest. Because America’s rivals are highly realist, their ultimate goal is to weaken U.S. power while strengthening their own. The fourth belief was: “Strong U.S. involvement reduces global turmoil.” According to this view, a world without American leadership would be at risk of descending into chaos. Believing that the U.S. could remain unaffected by this chaos would be an illusion. Fettweis argued that this belief underpinned the “Hegemonic Stability Theory,” whose rules were defined by the United States. Hegemonic stability, the theory posited, could not be achieved without U.S. power.

The fifth belief was: “Credibility is worth fighting for.” According to this principle, both allies and adversaries must have no doubt that American threats would be carried out. Any doubt would encourage adversaries to challenge the U.S. and discourage allies from trusting its power.

The sixth and final belief was: “Dictators must not be appeased.” This was exemplified by the 1938 Munich Conference, where British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain backed down in the face of Adolf Hitler’s threat to annex part of Czechoslovakia. The policy of appeasement not only left Britain and its allies indecisive but also emboldened Hitler’s aggression.

The Blob’s beliefs crystallized in Washington and shaped U.S. foreign policy after the country took over Britain’s global empire. The Blob continued to grow, extending its influence across public and private institutions involved in national security and defense. This allowed The Blob to wield power over American administrations through its bipartisan reach. Alternative foreign policy perspectives that deviated from The Blob’s beliefs were marginalized by being pushed out of the “Center.”

In summary, “The Blob” represents a stubborn foreign policy class that insists the United States must remain “the world’s preeminent power” and that this power must not be challenged by other actors. This perspective demands unwavering commitment to qualitative military superiority as a reflection of economic strength. According to The Blob, the more governments spend on defense, the safer the United States will be. The Blob functions both as a pillar of the Military-Industrial Complex and as its legitimizing force. Consequently, the continued expansion of the Military-Industrial Complex appears to depend on The Blob’s ideological and political influence in Washington remaining intact.

POWER, HABIT, AND THE ORDER OF FOREIGN POLICY

In 2018, Patrick Porter, a professor of international security and strategy in the UK, published an article titled Why America’s Grand Strategy Hasn’t Changed: Power, Habit, and the U.S. Foreign Policy Order in the journal International Security, issued by Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. In this article, Prof. Porter made striking observations about The Blob’s influence on American administrations.

Prof. Porter attributed the United States’ unwavering grand strategy during the Cold War to The Blob. According to him, U.S. presidents who sought to make new foreign policy initiatives retreated in the face of The Blob’s power. Examining the presidencies of Bill Clinton and Donald Trump, Porter argued that both presidents found themselves powerless against the entrenched Blob system in Washington.

Porter noted that the entrenched ideas of the U.S. foreign policy establishment—or The Blob—made it difficult to change America’s grand strategy. The U.S.’s military and economic capabilities enabled the government to pursue supremacy, but The Blob’s established assumptions framed this pursuit as a natural choice. As a result, alternative grand strategies based on “containment” or “retrenchment” were almost never considered, and the debate was reduced to questions of execution and implementation.

According to Porter, change in grand strategy was possible but would require significant shocks to challenge the assumptions of the status quo. Additionally, it would take a president willing to be an agent of change and ready to bear the political costs of overhauling Washington’s traditional system. Neither Clinton nor Trump succeeded in achieving the changes they had promised after becoming president. The Blob obstructed both administrations’ efforts to implement their policies.

Porter described the interaction between power and habit as stabilizing America’s grand strategy. By “power,” he referred to the relative economic size and military capabilities of a state, while “habit” referred to collective assumptions rooted in The Blob’s unquestioned beliefs. According to Porter, The Blob reproduced its ideology through four causal mechanisms: security elites accumulated knowledge about how grand strategy succeeded, internalized it through repetition, and created mental shortcuts; The Blob trained and socialized its recruits according to its worldview, excluding those who did not conform.

Furthermore, The Blob, as a class that distributed status and careers, dominated a pool of personnel who filled official positions. Through an institutional revolving door and a series of social networks, The Blob exerted influence from government appointments to foundations, think tanks, and universities, thereby gaining privileged access to power.

Presidents, in turn, selected staff from this pool. According to Porter, 15 of Clinton’s key policymakers were connected to a total of 41 companies. The Blob maintained dominance over public discourse through its privileged access to commentary platforms, thus advancing its agenda. Presidential candidates routinely relied on established figures in think tanks to formulate their foreign policy manifestos.

The Blob’s influence was not limited to the United States. It also interacted strongly with foreign policy elites in America’s allied countries, ensuring that these allies remained within the U.S.’s orbit. Porter noted that think tanks in the U.S., alongside American members, included academics from allied nations, particularly the UK, and collaborated on joint research, which confirmed The Blob’s transnational influence.

The financial ties between components of the American Military-Industrial Complex and think tanks further strengthened The Blob’s influence. Think tanks operating in defense, national security, international security, and foreign policy were funded by companies tied to the Complex. The revolving door mechanism extended between think tanks and the federal government as well.

Going beyond Porter’s article, many retired Pentagon generals first moved to arms companies, then returned to federal positions, later transitioning back to defense contractors. Simultaneously, they held positions in think tanks, university research centers focusing on strategy, geopolitics, and security, or became influential media commentators. Their credibility rested on their high-level military and political service, including in overseas wars. This revolving door completed The Blob’s ecosystem.

As Porter highlighted in his article, Donald Trump heavily relied on The Blob’s personnel pool during his first term. Most of Trump’s senior appointments were figures trusted and approved by The Blob. For instance, retired General James Mattis, who guaranteed continued U.S. support for NATO, became Secretary of Defense. Mattis had served as a senior executive in defense companies and was a former member of the Hoover Institution. Similarly, Trump appointed General H.R. McMaster, who shared Mattis’s approach, as National Security Advisor. Fiona Hill, a Kremlin analyst at the Brookings Institution, was appointed Senior Director for Europe and Russia on the National Security Council, despite her skepticism about U.S.-Russia reconciliation. Mike Pompeo, another Blob-aligned figure, was appointed CIA Director. Numerous other senior officials in the Trump administration were also at odds with the foreign policy changes Trump had pledged before his election.

According to Porter, the power of The Blob and tradition constrained the Trump administration, rendering the U.S.’s stance on global commitments more orthodox in substance, if not in style, than expected. However, Porter emphasized that The Blob was not a monolithic bloc, and disagreements often arose on issues below the grand strategic level.

“AMERICA FIRST” VS. “AMERICA EVERYWHERE”

Since Prof. Porter’s article was published in 2018, the data he used covered only the period up to that year. Subsequently, James Mattis, H.R. McMaster, and Fiona Hill resigned from the Trump administration. Trump replaced McMaster with John Bolton, a seasoned Neocon and staunch proponent of The Blob, as his National Security Advisor. However, Trump eventually fired Bolton. As Vox journalist Alex Ward noted, Trump’s “America First” philosophy and Bolton’s “America Everywhere” stance could not coexist.

A fervent supporter of Israel, Bolton played a significant role in Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Iran Nuclear Deal. Bolton, a Neocon passionate about bombing any country deemed a problem for the U.S., failed to persuade Trump to initiate a new war. After his dismissal, Bolton published a book in which he harshly criticized Trump. Trump responded in a post on X (formerly Twitter), saying, “If I had listened to him, we would have been in World War Six by now.”

During Trump’s first term, his decisions to withdraw American troops from Syria and Afghanistan were condemned by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington. As a unified bloc, The Blob declared war on Trump’s “America First” rhetoric. On January 1, 2019, Liberal Internationalist Antony Blinken and renowned Neocon historian and foreign policy writer Robert Kagan co-authored an article in The Washington Post. The article was titled, “America First is Making the World Worse. Here’s a Better Approach.”

The conclusion of the article reflected the core beliefs of The Blob as outlined by Prof. Christopher Fettweis. Blinken and Kagan concluded their piece with the following words:
“We have learned that the world is not self-governing. If the United States abandons its leading role in shaping international rules and institutions and mobilizes others to defend them, then one of two things will happen: Another power or powers will step in and move the world in a way that advances their interests and values, not ours. Or, more likely, the world will descend into chaos and conflict, and the jungle will take over, as it did in the 1930s. We do not need to make this mistake twice. For all the flaws of today’s world and the failures of our nation, we must not lose sight of what we have accomplished and what the world will look like if the United States shortsightedly loses the future.”

Following the 2020 elections, Blinken was appointed Secretary of State by Joe Biden. Meanwhile, Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, became Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs. Nuland had served in senior positions at the State Department under every administration since George W. Bush, with the exception of Trump.

Nuland was one of the National Security Advisors to Neocon Vice President Dick Cheney during George W. Bush’s presidency. When Trump took office in 2017, Nuland resigned from her position as Deputy Secretary of State. Like other Neocons, Nuland opposed Trump’s election as President of the United States.

“THE BLOB” RETURNS WITH BIDEN

After Trump, Democratic President Joe Biden also selected his top foreign policy, security, and defense team from the “Blob pool.” Some observers emphasized Biden’s choices with the phrase, “The Blob is back.” Biden’s inaugural message to Europeans, weary from Trump’s administration, stating “America is back,” was associated with The Blob’s resurgence.

Peter Beinart, a professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York, highlighted in his June 2, 2022, article for The New York Times, titled Is Biden’s Foreign Policy Team the Best of the Blob?, that The Blob tends to view American foreign policy as a series of military challenges requiring military solutions.

According to Beinart, most of Biden’s top aides came from institutions that supported this perspective of The Blob. While the Biden administration defied conventional wisdom by withdrawing American troops from Afghanistan, it did so to serve a project more valued by The Blob: strengthening America against great power rivals, particularly China. Beinart noted that there was no evidence Biden’s most influential advisors questioned whether this prioritization was appropriate given the actual threats Americans face.

Beinart emphasized that at least 11 senior foreign policy officials in Biden’s administration, including National Security Council “Asia czar” Kurt Campbell and Pentagon “China task force” leader Ely Ratner, came from the Center for a New American Security (CNAS). This hawkish liberal think tank receives more funding from defense contractors than any other institution in Washington.

Furthermore, Beinart pointed out that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin had previously served on the board of directors at Raytheon, one of the largest defense companies. Given these backgrounds, Beinart argued, it was unsurprising that the Biden administration proposed a military budget surpassing the peak levels of the Vietnam War.

Another issue Beinart highlighted was the significant disparity between public opinion and government policy. According to a Gallup poll, only 17% of Democratic voters supported increased military spending. Beinart specifically drew attention to this disconnect between the public and the administration.

HELL OF GOOD INTENTIONS

Ben Rhodes famously described Washington’s bipartisan foreign policy establishment as “The Blob.” However, in a later interview, he backtracked, partially associating himself with The Blob. In a January 2018 interview with Susan B. Glasser, Rhodes remarked, “In some ways, I have more in common with The Blob than people think, but at the same time, my comments could be misread. I was addressing a very specific issue about the use of military force in the Middle East and a groupthink vein that narrowed the options.”

Rhodes’s maneuver appeared to stem from the fact that the term “The Blob” was often used derogatorily, mockingly, or dismissively to criticize the entrenched foreign policy elite. Rhodes likely feared being excluded from the influential “Blob community” or the privileged “Blob class.”

Nevertheless, the term “Blob” gained legitimacy as a descriptor, especially among academics like Harvard University professor and leading realist scholar Stephen Walt. According to Walt, U.S. foreign policy had been failing since the end of the Cold War, with the root causes lying within America’s domestic political system. He attributed this failure to the unanimity of thought within The Blob.

Walt’s 2018 book, The Hell of Good Intentions: America’s Foreign Policy Elite and the Decline of U.S. Primacy, further ignited discussions about The Blob. Walt argued that U.S. foreign policy over the past 30 years had been a disaster—a bleak record for the United States.

He attributed the systemic failure of America’s grand strategy to The Blob, a small group of self-serving national security and intelligence officials, diplomats, defense bureaucrats, lobbyists, and think-tank employees who pushed U.S. policy in directions harmful to the nation but beneficial to themselves. Walt contended that the pursuit of “liberal hegemony” had not made the United States safer, stronger, more prosperous, or more popular. On the contrary, America’s ambitious attempts to reshape global politics weakened its own position, created chaos in various regions, and caused significant suffering in numerous countries.

Walt also believed that The Blob supported “liberal hegemony” not because they considered it the best grand strategy but because it offered more career advancement opportunities. In his book, Walt detailed how Blob members navigated revolving doors between public and private institutions to build their careers.

Despite its sprawling, complex structure, The Blob faced no accountability when its policies and predictions went wrong. Others bore the cost of its mistakes. Presidents came and went, but The Blob remained “untouchable.”

Another point Walt highlighted was how strategies contrary to The Blob’s beliefs were systematically sidelined in discussions. It is also worth noting that Walt and Professor John Mearsheimer faced fierce backlash from both liberal and Neocon factions of The Blob over their book on the Israel Lobby in America.

As a term of opposition and critique, “The Blob” is used not only by foreign policy thinkers who advocate for restraining U.S. military interventions but also by some Trumpist Republicans who oppose America’s endless wars. One such Republican is Senator J.D. Vance.

On November 5, 2024, Senator Vance was elected Vice President of the United States. In February 2022, Vance vehemently opposed the Biden administration’s $60 billion emergency aid package for Ukraine. He issued a written statement, akin to a manifesto, urging Republicans to vote against the package. In this statement, Vance described the aid as a collaboration between the “Foreign Policy Blob” and the “Deep State” to counter Trump.

The difference between Trump’s often-criticized “Deep State” and The Blob, however, was razor-thin. In essence, Trump’s “Deep State” and “The Blob” were nearly identical.

IS “THE BLOB” A CONSPIRACY THEORY?

Some foreign policy writers, academics, and political scientists reject the notion that The Blob is a monolithic bloc. According to these critics, it is not a homogeneous or single-culture political class. American writer Robert Wright argued that The Blob does not encompass all members of U.S. foreign policy institutions, stating, “The Blob is a large and dominant subset of the people in these institutions. While its members may not always agree, they share certain tendencies that shape U.S. foreign policy.”

The Blob’s stance on NATO illustrates Wright’s perspective. While some Blob members advocate NATO’s eastward expansion, others oppose it. However, The Blob as a whole is united in its support for NATO’s continued existence.

Another example involves the People’s Republic of China. The Blob is unanimous in viewing China as a “primary threat” to the U.S.—and even as an “existential” one. On this point, there is bipartisan consensus in the U.S. However, differing approaches to addressing this threat exist within The Blob.

Similarly, both Neocons and Liberal Internationalists within The Blob agree on the necessity of continuing U.S. military and financial aid to Ukraine. The differences lie in the specifics of the weapons provided to Ukraine.

Despite some formal differences among its members, everyone within The Blob supports “American global hegemony.” The Blob consists of bipartisan foreign policy elites in Washington who believe that sustaining America’s global dominance is essential for U.S. security and international peace.

Dr. Kevin Blachford, a lecturer in defense studies at King’s College London, emphasized this point in his article, Grand Strategy Misses the Point, published in The American Conservative on October 4, 2024. He argued that the obsession with grand strategy overlooks the fact that foreign policy is a product of politics.

Blachford explained that debates about the U.S. Grand Strategy isolate the state from society, oversimplify “national interest,” and ignore the numerous competing interests shaped by coalitions and advocacy networks. According to Blachford, warnings about the “Dual State” or The Blob are not deep-state conspiracy theories but acknowledgments of a state apparatus influenced by elite actors with specific backgrounds and career paths, who shape U.S. foreign policy through coalition networks and advocacy groups. Critics of The Blob err in believing that it speaks with a single voice or acts uniformly.

Blachford further argued that U.S. foreign policy has been dominated since the end of the Cold War by Blob advocates who view American hegemony as the cornerstone of international security. He also described grand strategy revisions as “wishful thinking” strategies that exaggerate the state’s unitary nature and fail to account for the conflicting interests in U.S. politics.

The making of American foreign policy is not directed by an open-minded president and a strategic national security advisor. Instead, it is governed by a competitive policy marketplace. Like the amorphous creature in The Blob film, this marketplace continually expands, incorporating bureaucracies made up of planning staff, research institutions, and lobbyists seeking prestige and funding for institutional growth, rather than pursuing the national interest.

Think tanks such as the Cato Institute and the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft are among The Blob’s critics. The Quincy Institute includes “Restrainers” or “Conservatives,” a left-right coalition of people who believe that U.S. foreign policy has been overly militaristic for decades.

Some conservatives, Republicans, and progressive Democrats like Bernie Sanders also oppose The Blob’s dominance in U.S. foreign policy. A faction of progressive Democrats advocates for a “lighter” or “smaller Blob” (Blob-lite).

According to these groups, the issue lies in U.S. foreign policy being controlled by a privileged group determined to serve its own interests rather than those of the nation as a whole. Blob opponents also argue for reduced U.S. defense spending.

In their view, the massive increases in defense budgets based on arbitrary national security justifications primarily serve the private interests of the Military-Industrial Complex.

TROTSKYISTS, NEOCONS, AND THE BLOB

According to critics of The Blob, American foreign policy is dominated by “Right-wing Neocons” and “Left-wing Neoliberals.” At times, the differences between Neocons and Neoliberals are so thin that they become almost indistinguishable. When The Blob wants to show its harsh, malevolent face, it pushes its Neocons to the forefront. Conversely, when it wants to appear “friendly,” it showcases its Neoliberals. For instance, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), known as a Neocon think tank, and the Brookings Institution, with its left-leaning neoliberal tendencies, are like two sides of the same coin. Interestingly, these two supposedly opposing think tanks often collaborate, even co-sponsoring the same programs.

Norman Podhoretz, a renowned Jewish Neocon, delivered a lecture in the 1990s titled Neoconservatism – A Eulogy. Born in 1930, Podhoretz was once a key figure in the movement known as the “New Left” in the U.S. By the 1970s, however, he had become a prominent leader of the Neoconservative movement.

In his lecture, Podhoretz provided valuable insights into the origins of the Neocon movement. According to him, Neoconservatism was founded by intellectuals living in New York, most of whom were Jewish. Podhoretz explained that many liberal intellectuals, Jewish or not, were compelled by “reality” to become Neocons. Many of the pioneers of the Neocon movement were “former Trotskyists” or “Neo-Trotskyists.” Another detail Podhoretz highlighted was that the vast majority of non-Jewish Neocons were Catholic. It’s also worth noting that Neocons and other wings of The Blob are staunchly pro-Israel.

Leon Trotsky, one of the leaders of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, fell out with Joseph Stalin and fled Russia. After spending several years in exile on Istanbul’s Büyükada Island, Trotsky eventually settled in Mexico, where he was assassinated. No matter how far he ran, Trotsky could not escape Stalin.

Many Trotskyists fleeing Stalin settled in the United States, where they found refuge. It seems that the American establishment saw value in the knowledge and critiques of Soviet governance provided by these anti-Stalin Trotskyist intellectuals. Hosting Trotskyists to counter the influence of Soviet ideology—centered around Stalin’s cult of personality—on global leftist movements was a strategic choice. Over time, these Trotskyists became increasingly Americanized.

The connection between Trotsky’s theory of “world revolution” or “permanent revolution” and the Neocons’ obsession with “endless wars” is not coincidental. The conditions Podhoretz referred to as “reality” transformed former Trotskyists into Neocons. Yet, in the process, Neocons were also influenced by Trotskyists.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust tells the story of a wandering magician who sells his soul to the devil, Mephistopheles, to gain magical powers and forbidden knowledge. Similarly, the Trotskyists’ transformation into Neocons, allowing them to access the dominant foreign policy elite (The Blob) and, through it, the U.S. government, can be seen as a “Faustian bargain.”

In the end, by dissolving into The Blob and merging with its other members, the Trotskyists lost all the values that once defined them.

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

The ideology of The Blob is built upon the “theory of American indispensability.” After the Cold War, the idea of being “number one” dominated the decision-making processes of America’s foreign policy elite. Critics argue that The Blob essentially comprises the rulers of the “American Empire.” The Blob also holds significant sway over which views are deemed acceptable in foreign policy, national security, and defense strategies. In essence, prescriptions for U.S. foreign policy or grand strategy must pass through The Blob. Alternative proposals are dismissed as “harmful prescriptions” by The Blob.

Quickly emerging as a defining term in foreign policy critiques, “The Blob” is frequently used by writers in American mainstream media. Those uncomfortable with its derogatory connotation insist that “The Blob” does not exist. However, in foreign policy debates, the term is now widely accepted and easily invoked by both critics and defenders. In fact, Neocons and liberal hawks often portray The Blob as a “necessary” structure. Notably, John Bolton, one of the most prominent Neocons, not only accepted being labeled a member of The Blob but did so with pride. If the American Blob is a crowded showcase of “the good, the bad, and the ugly,” Neocons like Bolton are its “bad guys.” The “good guys” are liberal hawks, while the “ugly” are hawkish Republicans.

The affirmative approach of Bolton and others seems to aim at preventing The Blob from being firmly established as a pejorative term for the foreign policy class. On the other hand, descriptions and critiques of The Blob are significant not just for defining what U.S. foreign policy is but for envisioning what it should not be.

In an April 10, 2017 article in Financial Times titled How Washington’s Blob Swallowed Donald Trump, Gideon Rachman noted that the Washington foreign policy establishment—mockingly referred to as “The Blob” by Ben Rhodes during Obama’s White House years—was united in its belief that the willingness to use military power was crucial both for America’s global position and the stability of the world order.

Obama’s failure to use force to uphold America’s “red line” against the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons in Syria in 2013 caused widespread unease within The Blob. Trump’s “isolationist” foreign policy rhetoric during his campaign further fueled despair within The Blob, along with fears that the U.S. might completely renounce its power. Thus, the sudden pivot toward military intervention in Syria under Trump’s administration was hailed as a turning point. Yet, this shift dismayed even Trump’s staunchest supporters. Ann Coulter, a loyal Trump supporter and author of the book In Trump We Trust, expressed her disappointment on X (formerly Twitter): “Why involve ourselves in another Muslim disaster?”

In a December 2, 2019 article in Financial Times titled Trump, Obama, and the Battles with the Blob, Rachman pointed out that adopting a cautious approach in foreign policy inevitably led to clashes with The Blob. He observed that Obama was criticized for “weakness,” while Trump faced backlash for “isolationism.” Rachman wrote:
“The debate over Afghanistan illustrates this point. Both Mr. Obama and Mr. Trump entered office skeptical of continued military intervention. Both presidents were later persuaded to send more troops—only to begin withdrawing them again during the later stages of their presidencies.”

According to Rachman, both Obama and Trump intended to pull the U.S. out of the Middle East, which led to considerable skepticism within the Washington establishment known as The Blob. Both presidents preferred to focus U.S. efforts on countering China in the Asia-Pacific. However, The Blob maintained that the U.S. could confront adversaries and rivals on multiple fronts, including the Middle East. Consequently, Obama and Trump’s efforts to reduce America’s global military commitments unsettled both The Blob and U.S. allies.

IS THE BLOB A PROBLEM OR A SOLUTION?

Debates over The Blob between its critics and defenders show no signs of abating. Unsurprisingly, the academic community has also joined the discussion. On April 29, 2020, Johns Hopkins University professor of global affairs Hal Brands, Duke University professor of political science and public policy Peter Feaver, and University of Texas associate professor William Inboden co-authored an article in Foreign Affairs, published by the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), titled In Defense of the Blob. The authors targeted Stephen Walt and argued that The Blob was not a monolithic entity and that its foreign policy track record over recent decades was largely successful.

The authors noted that Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor during Barack Obama’s administration, mocked the foreign policy establishment as “The Blob” and ridiculed its hawkishness. They pointed out that Republicans later joined this chorus. The authors also highlighted how Donald Trump declared war on mainstream foreign policy and national security experts, dismissing them as failed “Washington elites” clinging to their power. Some of Trump’s harshest critics in academia even agreed with him on this point. The article’s co-authors expressed discomfort with these criticisms from prominent academic figures, which they believed undermined the credibility and reputation of Washington’s foreign policy elite.

According to Brands and his colleagues, rejecting The Blob’s collective wisdom amounted to rejecting expertise, which, as demonstrated by Donald Trump’s amateur approach to foreign policy, could lead to disastrous outcomes. They firmly rejected the critique that U.S. foreign policy was controlled by a privileged clique (The Blob) committed to serving its own interests at the expense of the nation while excluding alternative ideas and dissenting voices.

The authors argued that critics of The Blob underestimated both its internal diversity and its achievements. While the “grand engagement strategy” pursued by Washington since the end of the Cold War was occasionally disrupted by “poorly conceived and mismanaged” military interventions in Iraq and elsewhere, it had generally fostered stability, peace, and prosperity. Thanks to liberal internationalism, they contended, the “long peace” had continued, and the world had remained “generally on a positive trajectory.” For Brands and his colleagues, “The Blob, as a foreign policy establishment, is the solution, not the problem.”

Hal Brands, who served as Special Assistant for Strategic Planning at the Department of Defense under Obama and as lead writer for the National Defense Commission during the Trump administration, was joined by Peter Feaver, who worked as Special Advisor for Strategic Planning and Institutional Reform on the National Security Council under George W. Bush and as Director of Defense Policy and Arms Control under Bill Clinton. William Inboden had served as Senior Director for Strategic Planning at the State Department and the National Security Council under George W. Bush. All three authors are recognized for their extensive publications on foreign policy, strategy, and defense.

In his October 31, 2018 article in Bloomberg, titled The Intellectuals Who Hate the Blob Have Much in Common with Trump, Hal Brands criticized Stephen Walt, John Mearsheimer, and Barry Posen—leading academic critics of The Blob. Brands observed that these realist scholars disliked military interventions, expanding alliances, and imposing American values abroad, and provocatively asked, “Sound familiar?” He went so far as to liken realist critics of Blob policies to Trump, writing:
“Recent books and articles suggest that the President and the professors are united in their disdain for America’s foreign policy elite. The argument put forth by this unlikely alliance—that the foreign policy elite is a corrupt clique steering the country from disaster to disaster—fits the anti-establishment mood of the day. But it is also wrong.”

Emma Ashford, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center’s Reimagining U.S. Grand Strategy Program, attempted to bridge the gap between Blob defenders and critics. In her May 29, 2020 article in Foreign Affairs, titled Build a Better Blob, Ashford argued that “foreign policy is not a binary choice between Trumpism and discredited elites.” While acknowledging the validity of some of Stephen Walt’s and other critics’ points, Ashford called for addressing The Blob’s flaws. She proposed the idea of a “benign Blob.”

While Ashford agreed with Brands and his colleagues that moving away from expertise was unwise, she also warned:
“Defending the Blob as the only game in town suits those who align with its consensus, but it creates a dangerous false choice: equating expertise with hawkish liberal interventionism leaves Trump’s incompetence as the only alternative.”

Ashford suggested that the best path forward for reformers of U.S. foreign policy was to retire the term “Blob.” Instead of merely criticizing it, reformers should work to replace it.

Francis Gavin, director of the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University, a lifetime CFR member, historian, and professor of international relations, also strongly rejected Stephen Walt’s criticisms of The Blob. In his August 2020 article titled Blaming the Blob? How to Evaluate America’s Grand Strategy, Gavin defended The Blob, much like Brands and his co-authors.

Gavin’s article served as a rebuttal to Walt’s book, The Hell of Good Intentions. Gavin disputed the characterization of the foreign policy establishment (The Blob) as a mutually reinforcing community of individuals and institutions sharing a common worldview—namely, the strategy of liberal hegemony. Instead, Gavin described The Blob as a group of open-minded, dedicated professionals with intellectual diversity and high standards, focused solely on the interests of the country and the world.

THE BLOB AND THE EXTERNAL ENEMY

There is a strong and reciprocal relationship between The Blob’s reliance on the American Military-Industrial Complex and the manufacturing of “external enemies.” The Complex and its components play a significant role in producing external adversaries and shaping the perception of threats associated with them. This strategy is crucial for legitimizing increased military budgets and safeguarding the economic interests of major defense contractors. To justify higher military spending, a formidable “great enemy” must be staged. A “small enemy” incapable of causing military harm to the U.S., protected by two oceans, would not be sufficient to convince the public.

Moreover, the creation of external enemies not only leads to increased military spending but also triggers international tensions and wars. Critics argue, however, that the reality goes beyond this. A phrase often used by those unfamiliar with The Blob’s intricate rhetoric captures this succinctly: “The Blob means endless wars.”

“Endless wars” are made possible through the continuous fabrication of “enemies.” For The Blob, the “enemy” is a useful and indispensable tool, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, it ensures the continuity of the bipartisan foreign policy order; internationally, it legitimizes wars against external enemies.

During the Cold War, the “enemy” was the Soviet Union. In the post-Cold War era, particularly in the 2000s, the enemy became non-state actors targeted in the “Global War on Terror.” Nearly the entire world became a battlefield. The Blob cannot function without an enemy under any circumstances. The “enemy” is the raison d’être of The Blob.

German legal scholar and political theorist Carl Schmitt, in his 1932 essay The Concept of the Political, argued that the friend-enemy distinction is the most fundamental criterion for explaining political action and motivations. According to Schmitt, this distinction can persist practically and theoretically without relying on other moral, aesthetic, economic, or other criteria. A political enemy need not be morally bad, aesthetically ugly, or economically competitive; in fact, engaging with a political enemy might even be advantageous. What matters is that the political enemy is “other” and “foreign.” It suffices for the enemy to be an existentially distinct and alien entity in the most intense sense. Whether the enemy poses an actual threat is of little significance.

It is worth noting that Schmitt, known as a Nazi sympathizer during Hitler’s era and long excluded from academic debates, became a frequently cited figure in American political thought circles starting in the 1980s.

Following the “Global War on Terror,” the American Blob has already declared China as its new “great enemy.”

HEY, EVERYONE, WATCH OUT FOR “THE BLOB”!

In his 1961 farewell address, U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower warned Americans about the “Military-Industrial Complex.” Decades earlier, John Quincy Adams, serving as Secretary of State, issued a different caution to Americans during a speech to Congress on July 4, 1821. Adams urged Americans to avoid foreign wars, emphasizing that engaging in them would cause Americans to lose their identity. He declared:
“The fundamental principles of [their] policy will insensibly change from liberty to force… [They] may become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

These warnings by Adams and Eisenhower stand as examples of “self-fulfilling prophecies.” Other American presidents, however, went out into the oceans searching for “monsters to destroy.” When they couldn’t find any, they made sure to “create” monsters.

The Blob would declare, “This is our monster,” and America would pursue it. Whether the monster was real or not was irrelevant. What mattered was maintaining perpetual conflict and endless wars. With the help of its media, opinion leaders, experts, military and civilian bureaucrats, and politicians, The Blob would persuade the American public with the following argument:
“What’s good for The Blob is good for America. What’s good for America is good for the world.”

Australian independent journalist Caitlin Johnstone once remarked that it would clear up much confusion to recognize that the American empire is not a national government conducting continuous military operations but rather continuous military operations running a national government. According to Johnstone, wars are not designed to serve America’s interests; rather, America is designed to serve the interests of wars.

Meanwhile, the question of how Donald Trump, elected President of the United States on November 5, 2024, will handle The Blob remains shrouded in uncertainty. Trump’s top national security, defense, and foreign policy team appears to be a “hybrid” mix of Blob members and others.

Trump enjoys presenting himself as a president who did not start a new war during his tenure. Before the election, he pledged to end the “Russia-Ukraine War.” Can he achieve this despite The Blob? Will he succeed in bringing American troops home from Syria? Can Trump’s “America First” reconcile with The Blob’s “America Everywhere,” or will they clash? These questions will be answered after January 20.

In the 1958 film The Blob, actor Steve McQueen starred as Steven, a character trying to warn his small-town neighbors about a shapeless, red, gelatinous creature that grew uncontrollably and consumed people. Reflecting on his role, McQueen said:
“The main challenge of acting in this film was running around wide-eyed and shouting, ‘Hey, everybody, watch out for The Blob!’”

Warnings about America’s real Blob are not much different from Steven’s.

If the American Military-Industrial Complex can be compared to the massive warships of centuries past—galleys or even larger “bastardas” powered by rowers—then The Blob is the collective force of rowers that propels this militaristic vessel. Without rowers, the ship cannot sail. These modern-day galleys, well-funded by ordinary Americans’ taxes, sail across oceans while trillions of dollars meant to serve Americans flow into the coffers of an elite class enjoying luxury on the captain’s deck.

The Blob crafts and executes policies that bring no benefit to ordinary Americans but lead to endless wars that kill millions, maim countless more, and devastate entire nations. A small number of American intellectuals opposing The Blob cry out to deaf ears, much like Steven in The Blob:
“Hey, everyone, watch out for The Blob! Watch out for The Blob!”