This piece provides an illustration of the military-industrial complex in action. But, it also provides an illustration of the way liberals react in a limited form to government actions that don't conform to prevailing myths about the rule of law and representative government.
Although this liberal source doesn't like the strong ties between the "peoples" representatives and weapons contractors, they carefully limit their criticism by describing the latest planned aggressions in Iraq and Syria as "debatable", and whine about Obama not complying with the constitutional power of Congress to declare war--as if this hasn't already been established as legitimate by precedents from a long history of US engagement in wars without a formal declaration by Congress ever since the Korean War. The shadow government simply relies on members of Congress to approve military spending in support of wars after they make the decision to go to war, thereby avoiding any debate about engaging in military actions.
...what you won’t learn from media coverage of ISIS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world. Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry.