Regarding Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" quote

[TheItalianStallion]

I've heard a lot of people bring up the Eisenhower quote (from his farewell address) about the [oh-so-sinister] “military industrial complex”. It’s frequently used to imply some type of all-powerful force guiding/creating American foreign policy (Oliver Stone even used it to open JFK).

But was this really what Eisenhower meant? What is the context of the quote (within the same speech)? Don't forget he also said "We recognize the need for this development," something a lot of people citing the speech tend to forget. He explained in the address itself why the permanent arms industry was necessary. He said: ’A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.’ In other words, because of advances in technology, military research must be on-going. [And that is especially true today.]

Furthermore, those who cherry pick this line out of his speech may give one the mistaken idea that Ike blamed the USA for the Cold War. From his farewell address [referring to communism]: “We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.” So in other words [from his p.o.v.]: the USA was hardly the aggressor nation in the Cold War. And he went on to say that the challenge they posed had to be met.

So did Ike share a far left-winger’s view of the MIC? Was he in sympathy with the average war protestor [of the Vietnam era that followed] that held the MIC was in control? Note how he said that the power of the MIC might be "sought or unsought." For 60s leftists (or the radical leftist of today for that matter), "unsought" power for the MIC was inconceivable.

The way I read the speech: Ike didn’t view the MIC as uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted [large] government expansion in general. Also within the same speech: “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

Actually the bogeyman of the military industrial complex is something of a myth. At the end of Eisenhower's administration military spending accounted for around 10% of GDP. Over the decades it's declined until reaching its present level of under 4% of GDP.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_s/s7. cfm

Given these numbers, one might wonder if Ike would warn us to shore up our national security infrastructure.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

[Ghost of]

Your analysis is basically correct. What Eisenhower was warning about, if anything, was the incestuous nature of lobbying, budgeting, bids and awarding contracts and the influence on appropriations, policy, etc. There is nothing to indicate he feared actual foreign policy decisions being based on armament. After all, a company probably makes more money helping the country be 'prepared' and not having their equipment fail in real world operations. Oh, wasn't our interstate highway system essentially a defense expenditure in Eisenhower's mind (or have that practical benefit, at least?)

What is also ignored is that he warned about the entanglement of science and government through grants and other funding and how that might corrupt the integrity of scientific endeavor.

Yet another thing not mentioned by those who cite that speech.

One of the biggest recent violators is the anti-Iraq (it's not as much about military policy as is believed, it's heavily slanted against Iraq in particular) film, Why We Fight. I actually watched the film and the intent on the part of the filmmakers seems to have been to lead people to a predestined conclusion, rather than actually attempt to strike a balance or even question the assumption that our wars have been the result of a military industrial complex. Also, North Korea spends practically all its resources on the state and the military. Though they are bellicose in rhetoric and do engage in state-sponsored terrorism and sales of arms to 'rogue states' they are not exactly invading a bunch of countries or having border wars. Nor is there really a complex there---all power is in the hands of the State and the military as the armed might of that State. The Soviet Union engaged in its expansionism and support of communists worldwide because of ideology and perhaps at the end out of habit. But not because of any 'company' and its influence on the Party.

This isn't the feudal era. Nations don't go to war to test out equipment or to satisfy procurement orders for a defense contractor. Typically, resources, population pressures like demography and ideology (of some type) form the substrate of any armed conflict between peoples or nation-states. A state may attempt to cow a people into ultimate submission to totalitarianism and thus go to war to 'unify' the homefront or divert resources away from civil activity to state activity, but I really can't foresee any foreign or defense policy being based on what Lockheed-Martin wants, other than appropriations related to procurement or development.

By using Eisenhower and distorting his intent (at least in that speech,) they are attempting to supply legitimacy to this untenable hypothesis, due to the fact he would have "inside knowledge" of the situation. This isn't the typical appeal to authority but ultimately it is and it's been extraordinary in shaping opinion on the matter.

If one looks back at the history of the United States, long before there was a 'complex' we intervened in nations or territories outside ours. One can see a pattern of intervention due to national interests (or private interests that the government sees as worth protecting) and due to our own unique ideologies, be it McKinleyan or Wilsonian or Monrovian.

In short, there's a hell of a lot that can be said about government corruption, excessive expenditures on defense (or any state activity,) foreign policy, the role of ideology (and shifts in those approaches) in our diplomatic and commercial relations and the development of 'laws of war' but the incessant braying about Eisenhower's "warning" is misinformed or deliberately misleading propaganda.

[alexey]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

I do not think that people tend to misunderstand this warning.

[alexey]

....

I think it would be more accurate to think of these things as dangerous incentives, rather than some kind of an organized conspiracy.

Indeed the "organized conspiracy" notion falls flat when these incentives are shown to produce different results in different circumstances. The "unwarranted influence" notion, however, does not.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I do not think that people tend to misunderstand this warning.

I don't think they misunderstand the warning, I think all to often the warning goes ignored.

Why We Fight is an excellent video documentary, I recommend it for all; I have both it and the book The American Way of War that prompted the video.

*edit

And apparently McPimpin disagrees with me.

[Ghost of]

I think it would be more accurate to think of these things as dangerous incentives, rather than some kind of an organized conspiracy.

But I don't even know if that's the case. It's far easier to enrich oneself and have a stable system than to engage in reckless and expensive wars overseas.

I guess I'm speaking specifically of the 'industrial' part of that complex.

Certainly, if we're now viewing Eisenhower as simply combining the military and vaguely 'industrial' concerns that may or may NOT be defense-related in nature then I can see more of the point. But I am not worried about McDonnell Douglass other than from the standpoint of

I'm more worried about people in government that then go into cushy jobs in lobbying (whether for foreign governments or not) or think tanks to stay around the halls of power or those who go from private to government jobs and continue to look out for the interests of that industry or company. I also do not like the creation of a public-private 'elite' that is removed from the lives of the citizenry as a whole and like to engineer and bureaucratize the entirety of society as if the nation were composed of livestock or numbers on a balance sheet.

I'd argue also that the media-government complex is far more invidious in influence and in shaping opinion of the public and even of policymakers (elected and appointed.)

Ultimately, I view the military as paradoxically (perhaps?) the home of the largest proportion of the citizenry that is still concerned with the constitution as I understand and value it. They may be engaged in the exact opposite in many respects but I know that, at least for a time, that Ron Paul was getting the most money from the military and had strong support from veterans. I see the military as only being a possible instrument of tyranny against the US but not the source. Also, we may not wish to contemplate it and it could go terribly awry but it might be the military in some form that steps into to prevent the country from taking the final steps towards despotism.

[Ghost of]

I don't think they misunderstand the warning, I think all to often the warning goes ignored.

Why We Fight is an excellent video documentary, I recommend it for all; I have both it and the book The American Way of War that prompted the video.

And apparently McPimpin disagrees with me.

I believe it's because you'd be wrong. I mean, the opinion on the documentary and book are subjective and I concede that. But I don't believe Eisenhower's warning is anything but a poetic preamble to any serious discussion of the issues often providing the basis for its invocation.

I have some sympathy for Paulian views of foreign policy and cutting back on 'empire' but I don't really agree with or see the basis for every assertion or argument made on their behalf.

It's similar to the 'blowback' theory. Certainly, this occurs and that's why there's a term for it but I see far too many instances of neutral countries that are still targeted either from afar or by hostile elements internally, actions that had no 'blowback' whatsoever, if only because human relations are far more complex than one group of people nursing phantom or legitimate grievances against another. I've NEVER received an answer as to what the initial 'intervention' was that cause the 'blowback' of Sudanese Arabs (or those who claim the mantle, many of whom are black themselves) oppressing and enslaving Sudanese blacks. Or that no one ever considers colonialism over the middle east as 'blowback' of centuries of piracy, kidnapping and enslavement of Europeans. And is there a time limit on this idea? How about geographical boundaries? And can a country be falsely included in a group of nations as part of that 'blowback'? Meaning, what if a country or group of people or a tribe believes falsely that Jews were at fault for some disastrous event that befell them? TECHNICALLY, this operates much the same way as 'blowback' except there's no REAL foreign policy or even private action that legitimizes the degree or the type of retaliation. What about how Germany was the fighting ground of larger forces and eventually this drove Germans to unification (under the Prussian way, I suppose) and expansionism? Blowback or simply ___ happening?

That's why I wonder why after we left 'Nam, we didn't see Vietnamese terrorists or asymmetric warfighters--only people struggling to get here. Is it because the faction we were against won? That seems odd. The concept seems arbitrary unless someone points to specific events. And often, even that is clouded by the judgments of historians who rush to identify the point where we "lost" the allegiance or friendship of a nation, as if the "Other" is incapable of forming their own judgments of their interests, ideology, temporary advantages, grievances and kinship. In some sense, the 'action' of one actor or nation may influence the decisions of others but it's difficult to say that one is RESPONSIBLE for those actions or that NOT engaging in those actions would have prevented the 'blowback' you experience.

Basically, I believe that even if a position is correct it must be supported by the facts and a reasoned conclusion, not by convenient syllogisms. I don't mind heated or exaggerated rhetoric in defense of an idea, but in a serious discussion we can't afford to entertain those same exaggerations or flimsy linkages.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm more worried about people in government that then go into cushy jobs in lobbying (whether for foreign governments or not) or think tanks to stay around the halls of power or those who go from private to government jobs and continue to look out for the interests of that industry or company. I also do not like the creation of a public-private 'elite' that is removed from the lives of the citizenry as a whole and like to engineer and bureaucratize the entirety of society as if the nation were composed of livestock or numbers on a balance sheet.

This is the big danger now. You see it in this administration with Goldman Sachs pretty much owning the Treasury Department

[alexey]

But I don't even know if that's the case. It's far easier to enrich oneself and have a stable system than to engage in reckless and expensive wars overseas.

Yes, but what happens if an expensive (to the country) war happens to be an easier way to enrich oneself? :evilg:

The crux of Eisenhower's warning seems to be about the partnership between the defense industry and government in search for easy ways of enriching oneself.

The potential problem of Government shifting focus away from public good and towards corporate interests is present in any interaction between big business and government.

To make sure I am understood properly: there is nothing wrong with making profits. The problem surfaces when things like lung cancer, global warming, health care crisis, etc start happening, but due to unwarranted influence our government fails to act in the interest of the public good.

[JMS]

Furthermore, those who cherry pick this line out of his speech may give one the mistaken idea that Ike blamed the USA for the Cold War.

The VMIC was a theme of the entire speach. So cherry pick is the wrong word. Likewise Ike didn't blame the MIC or the USA for the Cold War. So these two themes are irroniously linked in your argument.

So did Ike share a far left-winger’s view of the MIC? Was he in sympathy with the average war protestor [of the Vietnam era that followed] that held the MIC was in control?

First off I would point out that we don't have any powerful far left political views in our country. Far left would be communist, and last time I checked communists didn't play a big role in US foreign or domestic policy either now or in Ikes times.

Second off, The left is who created the vast military industrial complex in order to be the arsenal of democracy to defeat the Nazi's....

Third off, Eisenhower was the GOP Republican even Conservative, or what passed for Conservative in the early 50's.... and he's warning of the danger of something he's seen. So I think your entire association with the left is reaching and not accurate.

The way I read the speech: Ike didn’t view the MIC as uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted [large] government expansion in general.

:doh: you are overlaying Ronald Reagan's concept of conservatism over Ike, which is historical nonsensical. Ike basically ran as a moderate and was in favor of many of FDR's new deal policies, just like every GOP candidate in the 40's was. Because to opose FDR's new deal in the 30's or 40's was a forula for political failure.

Seriously look who the Republicans put up against FDR and Truman, they were clones of the Democrats like Wendle Wilky... liberal moderates.

Actually the bogeyman of the military industrial complex is something of a myth. At the end of Eisenhower's administration military spending accounted for around 10% of GDP. Over the decades it's declined until reaching its present level of under 4% of GDP.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_s/s7. cfm

Given these numbers, one might wonder if Ike would warn us to shore up our national security infrastructure.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

:doh: for most of the last two decades we have outspent the next 16 greatest military powers combined in defense spending. Today we outspend the next 100-150 greatest military powers combined... 520 billion dollars.... There isn't one "enemy" among the top 16 military nations which doesn't enjoy permenent most favored trade status with our country.... Most of the countries are strong American allies... ( Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, or Israel ).

How anybody could claim we need to "shore up" or national defense is frankly dilusional.

[Ghost of]

This is the big danger now. You see it in this administration with Goldman Sachs pretty much owning the Treasury Department

You see with media too, by the way. How many journalists have now joined up with Obama's administration?

THat's not, in itself, a big problem unless one looks at how the media works to shape opinion. While I don't believe the media was 'whipping' people into any kind of frenzy over Iraq (I find the notion absurd,) certainly even SNL joked about how in the Democratic primaries they favored Obama and that even now, news items that would CERTAINLY have received big press under Bush are swept under the rug, minimized or even reframed to continue the support for the President and his policies.

Beyond questions of left and right, the media too often acts as the STATE MEDIA, perhaps not on a given policy position, but on the general legitimacy of state/coerced activity in order to 'solve' some problem, often one manufactured in urgency (or en toto) by the same media who wish to not only 'make news' and make money but to shape policy and society themselves.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Beyond questions of left and right, the media too often acts as the STATE MEDIA, perhaps not on a given policy position, but on the general legitimacy of state/coerced activity in order to 'solve' some problem, often one manufactured in urgency (or en toto) by the same media who wish to not only 'make news' and make money but to shape policy and society themselves.

Agree here also. The media is the biggest cheerleader for statism and "intervention" i.e something must be done by the government.

[Ghost of]

The crux of Eisenhower's warning seems to be about the partnership between the defense industry and government in search for easy ways of enriching oneself.

The potential problem of Government shifting focus away from public good and towards corporate interests is present in any interaction between big business and government.

To make sure I am understood properly: there is nothing wrong with making profits. The problem surfaces when things like lung cancer, global warming, health care crisis, etc start happening, but due to unwarranted influence our government fails to act in the interest of the public good.

Ah, you touched on some good things. I liked this post, as it presents a solid defense of your understanding of Eisenhower's warning.

I definitely see the military-industrial thing as only part of a larger idea. THAT I would concur with and I think Eisenhower would do, but I think the attitude of many is that government is there to work in the public interest. Sometimes, those interests may coincide but as with the issues you named in the last paragraph, I see a lot of manufactured crises (life isn't perfect, not every problem, even big ones are crises) that ALWAYS seem to call for government intervention rather than use of our already diminished social capital/power. As government takes more, it absorbs more of that power and it serves to perpetuate itself and its newly-empowered/enriched clients working directly against the 'public interest' while seeming to act on behalf of that public. I guess that's part of public choice theory, google it

The danger inherent in interactions between larger business interests and government is exactly why libertarians believe the government should be hands off. And in any real interaction, the State is the ultimate power (at least in most stable, affluent societies.)

I also think one could develop the idea of the NGO-Government complex. Everyone thinks of these groups as charities or defenders of women or children but many of these NGOs are themselves unofficial arms of the State or of the statist elites of the developed world. Most of them take large amounts of tax money from governments and will often, themselves, go into government or the UN when the time is right. One need not cover the already well-trod grounds of "UN venality and corruption discussions."

[alexey]

You see with media too, by the way. How many journalists have now joined up with Obama's administration?

THat's not, in itself, a big problem unless one looks at how the media works to shape opinion. While I don't believe the media was 'whipping' people into any kind of frenzy over Iraq (I find the notion absurd,) certainly even SNL joked about how in the Democratic primaries they favored Obama and that even now, news items that would CERTAINLY have received big press under Bush are swept under the rug, minimized or even reframed to continue the support for the President and his policies.

Beyond questions of left and right, the media too often acts as the STATE MEDIA, perhaps not on a given policy position, but on the general legitimacy of state/coerced activity in order to 'solve' some problem, often one manufactured in urgency (or en toto) by the same media who wish to not only 'make news' and make money but to shape policy and society themselves.

In my opinion the mainstream media is interested in making money.

Considering the in-depth investigative reporting that took place on actions taken during the last 8 years, I find your middle paragraph slightly delusional. There wasn't any such reporting. In my view the media has failed the American people during that time by playing it safe. Perhaps some credit should go to the Republican establishment for achievement that kind of media cooperation.

[PeterMP]

It's similar to the 'blowback' theory. Certainly, this occurs and that's why there's a term for it but I see far too many instances of neutral countries that are still targeted either from afar or by hostile elements internally, actions that had no 'blowback' whatsoever, if only because human relations are far more complex than one group of people nursing phantom or legitimate grievances against another. I've NEVER received an answer as to what the initial 'intervention' was that cause the 'blowback' of Sudanese Arabs (or those who claim the mantle, many of whom are black themselves) oppressing and enslaving Sudanese blacks. Or that no one ever considers colonialism over the middle east as 'blowback' of centuries of piracy, kidnapping and enslavement of Europeans. And is there a time limit on this idea? How about geographical boundaries? And can a country be falsely included in a group of nations as part of that 'blowback'? Meaning, what if a country or group of people or a tribe believes falsely that Jews were at fault for some disastrous event that befell them? TECHNICALLY, this operates much the same way as 'blowback' except there's no REAL foreign policy or even private action that legitimizes the degree or the type of retaliation. What about how Germany was the fighting ground of larger forces and eventually this drove Germans to unification (under the Prussian way, I suppose) and expansionism? Blowback or simply ___ happening?

I think even w/ blow back people misuse/recognize the signficance of the term. Michael Scheuer largely introduced the term to the common venecular and is largely cited as being an expert that links our ME foreign policy to 9/11 via blow back.

What people don't realize frequently (unless they've read, listened and thought about what he says) is to Scheuer, blow back isn't a reason NOT to act. He advocate(d) killing Osama even if it meant some UAE princes got killed too.

In his mind blow back is real and a concern, but it isn't paralyzing.

[Ghost of]

In my opinion the mainstream media is interested in making money.

Considering the in-depth investigative reporting that took place on actions taken during the last 8 years, I find your middle paragraph slightly delusional. There wasn't any such reporting. In my view the media has failed the American people during that time by playing it safe. Perhaps some credit should go to the Republican establishment for achievement that kind of media cooperation.

This is where we part ways. I think even ideologues look after their own purse and property. That's why some of the people I'm referring to are dangerously approaching "nomenklatura" status.

As for the last 8 years, there was plenty of investigation of a number of domestic and foreign policy Bush administration actions. Some of them were pinned on Bush but neglected to mention its continuity (not that this would justify it) of

I don't feel that 'corporate media' is the same thing you do. To me, it's always represented (at least during my adult life) a confluence of technocrats, muckrackers, hangers-on and Progressive crusaders. Sure, GE kills items that harm its overall agenda on NBC. But that doesn't stop the news departments from making all kinds of decisions.

Often, I find claims of the corporate media to originate with far leftists who really think the media establishment is 'conservative' or 'right-wing' (or simply not progressive enough--which I thought was not its role) when this doesn't even coincide with Lexis-Nexis-based research on coverage of organizations like the NRA vs. much smaller anti-self-defense groups.

Obviously, the business side will impact decisions on coverage but tell me what Republican interest was served by Eason's admitted censorship or revision of news out of its Baghdad Bureau so that CNN could have a bureau in Baghdad? The news was filtered through Ba'athist sources and he admitted that it may have cost people their lives. This same Eason went on to accuse the US military of targeting journalists. Eason was a CNN bigwig. I'm curious as to (except by his own malfeasance proving a larger point) how this served right-wing or Republican interests.

[Ghost of]

I think even w/ blow back people misuse/recognize the signficance of the term. M

What people don't realize frequently (unless they've read, listened and thought about what he says) is to Scheuer, blow back isn't a reason NOT to act. He advocate(d) killing Osama even if it meant some UAE princes got killed too.

In his mind blow back is real and a concern, but it isn't paralyzing.

Thanks for that post. My unfortunate first experience (at least that I recall) was from Chalmers Johnson (I think that's his name) and his first book really involving the subject.

I would agree the term is misapplied and I don't deny its legitimate uses. I just think that every time we talk about foreign policy, it's used by some to justify the paralysis you mentioned, either to prevent some future retaliation or consequence or because somehow we 'deserve' it for previous actions. Often it's preemptive term as it's poorly understood and is used to loosely that it loses all meaning when applied generally in these types of discussions.

[alexey]

Ah, you touched on some good things. I liked this post, as it presents a solid defense of your understanding of Eisenhower's warning.

I definitely see the military-industrial thing as only part of a larger idea. THAT I would concur with and I think Eisenhower would do, but I think the attitude of many is that government is there to work in the public interest. Sometimes, those interests may coincide but as with the issues you named in the last paragraph, I see a lot of manufactured crises (life isn't perfect, not every problem, even big ones are crises) that ALWAYS seem to call for government intervention rather than use of our already diminished social capital/power. As government takes more, it absorbs more of that power and it serves to perpetuate itself and its newly-empowered/enriched clients working directly against the 'public interest' while seeming to act on behalf of that public. I guess that's part of public choice theory, google it

The danger inherent in interactions between larger business interests and government is exactly why libertarians believe the government should be hands off. And in any real interaction, the State is the ultimate power (at least in most stable, affluent societies.)

I agree that government, just like any other entity, would try to increase it's power and influence. I also agree that there are numerous problems with increased government power, which of course includes the very thing that started this conversation.

However, I think it would be overly simplistic to reduce this to "more government" vs "less government" dichotomy.

Perhaps the way to move forward is to focus on improving the way government works. Government needs to work, and it needs to work well. This is something we all ought to be able to agree on regardless of our political of philosophical affiliations.

Unfortunately it seems that many on the right espouse a highly damaging philosophy of that being an impossible thing. It is very puzzling to me as to why people would vote for government to be ran by politicians who say that government cannot be ran well by definition.

My biggest problem with the Bush administration was its incompetence (to put it lightly) in running the government, and my biggest hope for the Obama administration is that the country will be ran by people who are more capable of doing so.

[alexey]

This is where we part ways. I think even ideologues look after their own purse and property. That's why some of the people I'm referring to are dangerously approaching "nomenklatura" status.

As for the last 8 years, there was plenty of investigation of a number of domestic and foreign policy Bush administration actions. Some of them were pinned on Bush but neglected to mention its continuity (not that this would justify it) of

I don't feel that 'corporate media' is the same thing you do. To me, it's always represented (at least during my adult life) a confluence of technocrats, muckrackers, hangers-on and Progressive crusaders. Sure, GE kills items that harm its overall agenda on NBC. But that doesn't stop the news departments from making all kinds of decisions.

Often, I find claims of the corporate media to originate with far leftists who really think the media establishment is 'conservative' or 'right-wing' (or simply not progressive enough--which I thought was not its role) when this doesn't even coincide with Lexis-Nexis-based research on coverage of organizations like the NRA vs. much smaller anti-self-defense groups.

Obviously, the business side will impact decisions on coverage but tell me what Republican interest was served by Eason's admitted censorship or revision of news out of its Baghdad Bureau so that CNN could have a bureau in Baghdad? The news was filtered through Ba'athist sources and he admitted that it may have cost people their lives. This same Eason went on to accuse the US military of targeting journalists. Eason was a CNN bigwig. I'm curious as to (except by his own malfeasance proving a larger point) how this served right-wing or Republican interests.

I very much disagree with your position that there was plenty of investigative reporting on the Bush administration... but I also think that investigative reporting in the media is generally very poor regardless of which party is in power. In either case, I do not think that I am sufficiently equipped to discuss political influence in the media.

Let me just share one interesting dynamic that undermines journalistic integrity.

For journalists, their bread and butter is access to news makers. Getting access means getting stories, etc. Being denied access means that competition gets the stories. Investigative reporting that goes against the establishment may sell initially, but cost you too much in the long run because you will get denied access as retribution.

[TheItalianStallion]

Originally Posted by Dwight D. Eisenhower

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

I do not think that people tend to misunderstand this warning.

Note the "unsought" bit. How would the MIC gain "unsought" influence? If a war needs to be fought. It seems to me that Ike was warning us against getting involved in the wrong conflicts.

[TheItalianStallion]

[/size][/font]

The VMIC was a theme of the entire speach. So cherry pick is the wrong word. Likewise Ike didn't blame the MIC or the USA for the Cold War. So these two themes are irroniously linked in your argument.

Never said he did, but far-leftists often do.

First off I would point out that we don't have any powerful far left political views in our country. Far left would be communist, and last time I checked communists didn't play a big role in US foreign or domestic policy either now or in Ikes times.

Second off, The left is who created the vast military industrial complex in order to be the arsenal of democracy to defeat the Nazi's....

Third off, Eisenhower was the GOP Republican even Conservative, or what passed for Conservative in the early 50's.... and he's warning of the danger of something he's seen. So I think your entire association with the left is reaching and not accurate.

If I'm not mistaken, the idea that the US gov't is controlled by corporations, particularly defense contractors, was conceived by the communist bloc, and today's far-leftist, both here and abroad, often do still believe that. However you are right to point out that it isn't exclusively a leftist idea; ultra-libertarian types like Alex Jones also believe it.

[/font][/size]:doh: you are overlaying Ronald Reagan's concept of conservatism over Ike, which is historical nonsensical. Ike basically ran as a moderate and was in favor of many of FDR's new deal policies, just like every GOP candidate in the 40's was. Because to opose FDR's new deal in the 30's or 40's was a forula for political failure.

Seriously look who the Republicans put up against FDR and Truman, they were clones of the Democrats like Wendle Wilky... liberal moderates.

I know that, and it...really isn't relevent. Though it's worth noting that he sold to the public the idea for the Highway plan with a "nat'l defense" argument.

:doh: for most of the last two decades we have outspent the next 16 greatest military powers combined in defense spending. Today we outspend the next 100-150 greatest military powers combined... 520 billion dollars.... There isn't one "enemy" among the top 16 military nations which doesn't enjoy permenent most favored trade status with our country.... Most of the countries are strong American allies... ( Canada, Britain, France, Italy, Germany, or Israel ).

How anybody could claim we need to "shore up" or national defense is frankly dilusional.

Heh, the "shore up our nat'l defense" bit was a one-liner that I tossed in there. My point was that defense spending has declined over the decades since Ike left office (a couple of spikes aside). Non-defense spending has been increasing as a share of GDP since then, and IMO cutting non-defense spending is a much more pressing need than cutting existing defense spending.

[JMS]

If I'm not mistaken, the idea that the US gov't is controlled by corporations, particularly defense contractors, was conceived by the communist bloc,

Nope.... FDR and Truman created the Vast Military Industrial Complex to fight Nazi Germany. It's what allowed us to go from building 2000 planes in 1938, to 100,000 planes in 1943.

The "idea" that the US government could be influenced by this massive special interest it created, was first brought up by Eisenhower himself. Unless your claiming Ike got it from the Communists?

I think the idea that the government could be influenced against it's own and the countries interests originated during the spanish American war when newspaperman Hersh drummed up support for the war in order to sell news papers, then tried to arm his yatch and volenteer to patrol the coast of California. Believe it or not that's a true story.

and today's far-leftist, both here and abroad, often do still believe that.

Actually it's traditionally conservatives who think the huge beurocracies of government and their consultants are trying to take over the world. Liberals typically like large combersome beurocracies.

I know that, and it...really isn't relevent. Though it's worth noting that he sold to the public the idea for the Highway plan with a "nat'l defense" argument.

My point was the GOP which warned us of the growing power of the Vast Military Complex actually had more incommon with the Democrats who created that Military Complex than with Conservatives of today. Moderate left leaning socially and domestically, strong on defense.

Heh, the "shore up our nat'l defense" bit was a one-liner that I tossed in there. My point was that defense spending has declined over the decades since Ike left office (a couple of spikes aside).

Actally that depends on your perspective. When IKE left office the DOW Jones had just recovered from the Great Stock Market Crash of 1928. The economy was set to rocket growth....

Defense spending from 1950 when we were involved in a war of attrition with the Soviets might have shank compared to GDP, but in real dollars it's grown significantly... It's just that the GDP grew faster.

Non-defense spending has been increasing as a share of GDP since then, and IMO cutting non-defense spending is a much more pressing need than cutting existing defense spending.

Fact is in Ikes time we hadn't yet had Johnson's war on poverty or the great society. We didn't have medicare medicaid or a number of other programs. Why should we spend more on defense than we do on social programs? Why should their be any correpondance at all. Why can't we spend enough to keep us ahead of our potential enemies? I would say by any realistic metric today we spend too much on defense, and not enough domestically.

[Baculus]

Ack! You need to use a different font.

I think some key points are missing from this speech, such as using our (the US's) power for the interests of world peace and human betterment."

He also had some warnings for future generations which we have not heeded: "Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad."

Yes, he does say "This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience" and that "we recognize the imperative need for this development." But he also adds, "Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications."

The subsequent statements are the most important parts of this speech. He begins with this observation: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

He further warns, "We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

His speech further discusses the need to find balance in this effort -- a balance between the private and public sector, a balance in our financial efforts, and, in his words, "It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society."

That is really what this speech is about: The need for the military, post-World War Two, and how the US defense situation was unique. But with that in mind, with the growth of the military industry and its relationship with Congress and the new Department of Defense (which was changed from the Department of War in '47), we have to be careful of such convergences in power, lest they be abused.

In some ways, he is saying that the need for something shouldn't outweigh its purpose. This is true of government. This is true of the military.

He ends his speech with words that, in this day and age, would have him painted as a liberal: "We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."

The way I read the speech: Ike didn’t view the MIC as uniquely insidious, but rather he distrusted [large] government expansion in general. Also within the same speech: “The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.”

Yes and no. Government shrank in some areas under Eisenhower and it grew in others. The 1956 Highway Act is an example of a large, half-century long government program. The 50s was also a time period marked by federal grants to veterans on the form of the G.I. Act.

Like many Presidents, Eisenhower saw the potential for both government abuse and for the improvement of the nation through some government activism. Case in point, infrastructure improvements and education.

After all, Eisenhower did send the military into Little Rock to ensure that desegregation was enforced.

Actually the bogeyman of the military industrial complex is something of a myth. At the end of Eisenhower's administration military spending accounted for around 10% of GDP. Over the decades it's declined until reaching its present level of under 4% of GDP.

It must be added that Eisenhower wanted to originally say "Military-industrial-military" complex in his speech. This is the Iron Triangle, whi9ch is one of the most potentially dangerous relationships in this country and has been since the early part of this century.

The military budget is 21% of our national budget, and this year, we are spending over five hundred trillion on this budget. The US GDP has risen since the 50s, so using the percentage of GDP for military spending isn't telling the whole story.

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/military-relative-size.php

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/budgetchartbook/charts_s/s7. cfm

Given these numbers, one might wonder if Ike would warn us to shore up our national security infrastructure.

Anyway, my 2 cents.

After all the money we already spend, you want our nation to spend more money? When is enough . . . enough?

[alexey]

Note the "unsought" bit. How would the MIC gain "unsought" influence? If a war needs to be fought. It seems to me that Ike was warning us against getting involved in the wrong conflicts.

An example of "unsought" influence would be Congressmen fighting to keep military programs that generate jobs in their state.

[AsburySkinsFan]

An example of "unsought" influence would be Congressmen fighting to keep military programs that generate jobs in their state.

And we all know that would never happen....<cough>F-22<cough>