In this context, we are studying the three sides of the so-called "Iron Triangle". The term refers to a powerful three-sided combination, made up of certain members of Congress (or Congressional committees), certain parts of the bureaucracy (executive branch agencies and administrative departments), and special interest groups. Each of the entities comprising the triangle arguably seeks to capitalize on (and expand) its own particular angle. The parties also work together to satisfy mutual interests.

Consider connotation in this context. At first blush, do you expect the term "iron triangle" to have a positive or negative connotation? Please approach this topic with the aim to both critique and assess validity.
you'll extend your analysis to the "military-industrial complex". As you complete the readings and organize thoughts for your initial post, please try to diagram the relationships amongst the interested parties. Set out the three-sided geometric figure with which you're already familiar. Then, place the relevant parties at the three corners. What are the inter-relationships among them? How do interests flow? Funding? Support?

For example, to the extent that the defense industry profits when the military commits to a lengthy war, how might interests be impacted? What are the relative interests of Congress, the military bureaucracies, and defense industries? How are those interests intertwined?

Please get some scrap paper and make notes of the various relationships between the three parties. What other parties have a stake in this context? How might they penetrate the triangular relationship? To the extent they are unable to do so, what concerns might this raise?

In your discussion, pay special attention to the DQ's point that while many commentators argue the military-industrial complex is an example of an iron triangle with negative consequences, not everyone agrees. What are the arguments disputing parties might put forth? What type of support do such parties look to? Do you agree with the arguments?

Please also work to draw your own conclusions. Remember to support your view with facts as well as persuasive reasoning about the impact of these relationships on defense spending. Simply saying "I agree" or "I disagree" will not effectively persuade your readers or further the class discussion.

Please also work to evaluate the accuracy of the iron triangle model as a basis for understanding the process of making defense spending policy. Can you identify any flaws with this model?

As you tackle the readings on this topic, please keep the following questions in mind -

• Which part of the iron triangle would you expect to have the greatest power over policymaking? Why?

• Do you believe we could effectively eliminate iron triangles? Why, why not? To the extent we were able to do so, what new issues might arise?

• What about private citizens and groups? What role, if any, do/should they play in this context?

As you move on, consider the term iron. A strong element, iron is often impenetrable. In this context - where existing triangles are as "strong as iron," outside influences, including the interests of the general public, often have little ability to impact established relationships. Consider the long-lasting implications of such strong mutually supportive relationships. How might private citizens be impacted, and what might a concerned citizen do in order to enhance his/her influence on this policy-making environment?

Please use APA formatting and cite references as much as possible.