Regarding Eisenhower's "military-industrial complex" quote

[TheItalianStallion]

Ack! You need to use a different font.

I typed it on Word.

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."

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.

My take on this is that he didn't want us to get involved in the wrong conflicts.

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."

I'm a conservative, and I'd like nothing more than for the whole world to join hands in a peaceful utopia. Unfortunetely that's not feasible. Not yet, anyway.

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.

It's worth noting that the argument he used on the public for his Highway plan was a nat'l defense argument. He felt that the Germans would've been much harder to defeat had they had a better highway system.

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.

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

That was just a one-liner that I tossed in. My point is that other parts of gov't spending have grown proportionally higher. Personally I'm in favor of cutting spending across the board, including defense, but some things take priority over others.

[AsburySkinsFan]

My point is that other parts of gov't spending have grown proportionally higher. Personally I'm in favor of cutting spending across the board, including defense, but some things take priority over others.

I have no problem with spending on military being higher than other areas, that's something that sadly is not going to go away no matter how much I wish it would. However, the degree to which we throw money at military spending is simply obscene. Whenever I look at our Defense (offense) budget I just get sick, because I see that we could pay for health care across this country if we hadn't allowed the "Military Industrial Complex" (Pentagon, Corporations, Elected Officials) to get completely out of control.

The US alone makes up for nearly 50% of all military spending in the entire world. So out of every dollar spent on military budgets around the world the US pays 48 cents, that is simply unreal!

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/policy/securityspending/articles/fy09_dod_request_global/

[TheItalianStallion]

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.

Dating back to WWI, Lenin believed that WWI was just a "capitalists' war," and that the fat cats were pulling the strings behind the scenes. But you seem to have misunderstood what I wrote. I wasn't talking about who created it, I'm talking about the belief that it controls our gov't, particularly our foreign policy.

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.

Defense contractors =/= gov't bureaocracies. And I didn't say that they were out to controll the world, just that anti-American types tend to believe that US foreign policy is dictated by the MIC.

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.

I'm not sure that's true. The GOP of the time had different wings. The GOP of today is socially conservative, but is fiscally moderate or even left-leaning. The dems who first created it (FDR) were very liberal. The dems of today are divided between the blue dogs and the liberals.

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.

It would thus seem that the MIC has less influence than other interests.

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.

Depends on what you consider the role of gov't to be. Defense IMO is one of the few legit functions of gov't. Though I think spending should be cut across the board, including defense.