Official records from the Department of War and congressional testimony confirm that since President Trump's inauguration in January 2025, Secretary Pete Hegseth has spearheaded the "Arsenal of Freedom" initiative and nationwide tour. This program has stimulated substantial private-sector capital into defense manufacturing, with Hegseth's April 2026 testimony highlighting multi-year procurement deals designed to send an unambiguous "build more, build faster" signal to industry. The effort aligns with a reported surge in private investments across dozens of states, expanding facilities, and creating tens of thousands of defense-related jobs, as the administration shifts from government-funded outlays toward industry self-investment in American production capacity. Yet applying a heterodox lens reveals deeper, often overlooked connections: this "war economy" revival embodies the very military-industrial complex President Eisenhower warned against in 1961, where sustained conflict and threat inflation become economic imperatives rather than unfortunate necessities. Mainstream economics rarely accounts for how military Keynesianism—using defense spending as fiscal stimulus amid deindustrialization—locks in perverse incentives. Private capital flowing into missiles, munitions, and platforms (as documented in White House investment trackers and analyses of venture surges exceeding $16 billion in defense tech) depends on perpetual demand. That demand is best assured not by peace, but by managed tensions and occasional hot conflicts that deplete stockpiles and justify replenishment. Breaking Defense and CSIS discussions of the tour note the explicit goal of accelerating production for "warfighting" and deterring adversaries, yet critics of endless warfare see a self-reinforcing loop: contractors profit, GDP metrics improve via "defense" line items, congressional districts gain jobs, and the strategic rationale for drawdowns evaporates. This pattern, visible from post-WWII boom through endless Middle East engagements, is ignored in standard models that treat military outlays as neutral multipliers rather than drivers of geopolitical rent-seeking. The Trump administration's rebranding from "Defense" back toward "War" Department rhetoric, combined with $1.5 trillion budget proposals, amplifies the signal that war preparation itself is the growth engine. While creating tangible manufacturing revival in 39 states and hundreds of facilities, the unasked question remains whether such revitalization can be disentangled from the necessity of actual conflict to sustain it long-term. Eisenhower's ghost looms: in an economy increasingly tethered to the arsenal, peace becomes the ultimate disruption.