Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Why did Eisenhower wait until his farewell address to warn of the Military–industrial complex?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
NNN0LHI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:34 PM
Original message
Why did Eisenhower wait until his farewell address to warn of the Military–industrial complex?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military%E2%80%93industrial_complex

Military–industrial complex

Military–industrial complex (MIC), or Military–industrial-congressional complex (MICC) is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the industrial sector that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for defense spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and beneficial legislation and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle.

The term is most often used in reference to the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.

The term is sometimes used more broadly to include the entire network of contracts and flows of money and resources among individuals as well as institutions of the defense contractors, The Pentagon, and the Congress and executive branch. This sector is intrinsically prone to principal-agent problem, moral hazard, and rent seeking. Cases of political corruption have also surfaced with regularity.

A similar thesis was originally expressed by Daniel Guérin, in his 1936 book Fascism and Big Business, about the fascist government support to heavy industry. It can be defined as, "an informal and changing coalition of groups with vested psychological, moral, and material interests in the continuous development and maintenance of high levels of weaponry, in preservation of colonial markets and in military-strategic conceptions of internal affairs."

Origin of the term

President of the United States (and former General of the Army) Dwight D. Eisenhower used the term in his Farewell Address to the Nation on January 17, 1961:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
jtown1123 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. If he had done it any earlier, he would've been "dealt with." Just my two cents n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
joeybee12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. +1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RKP5637 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. +1, n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
indepat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:02 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. Your two cents are seasoned with dash of reality and a ton of common sense and
reason. :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hifiguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #1
13. Exactly.
It was his farewell speech. I've read a couple of Eisenhower biographies and one thing that came through them was just how much Ike as president distrusted the military. Having been at the top thereof, I suppose he had very good reasons for doing so.

The problem was that JFK took Ike's warning seriously. And look how that turned out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. "JFK took Ike's warning seriously. And look how that turned out."
+1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:36 PM
Response to Original message
2. I have my suspicions.
They're quite :tinfoilhat:-ish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. Because he had buyers remorse.
he was as much a part of the MIC and helped it become reality than anyone else.

He was trying to wall paper his willful involvement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #4
6. Bing!
Eisenhower oversaw more expansion of the military and military spending than basically any other president until Reagan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #4
18. Exactly: Because he was looking back on the mess he had presided over.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MADem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. Because he would have been run out of town on a rail--even sooner if he'd left in the "C" word.
....as in "MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL-CONGRESSIONAL" complex....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zen Democrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:51 PM
Response to Original message
7. My understanding is that it was not in the prepared text of his remarks.
He sprang it on the Military-Industrial Complex in a live broadcast on his last day in office. He knew.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Eisenhower didn't want to be JFK'd. The MIC had already given us
Korea and Viet Nam was already actively in the works.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
10. he waited til his retirement cash grabs were all signed? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Downwinder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:05 PM
Response to Original message
12. He would have lost his tee times?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ieoeja Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:10 PM
Response to Original message
15. He felt we needed it for the Cold War and should dismantle it when over.

He knew that would be a very long time giving it time to set down roots which would be hard to pull up.

You will note that he did not call for dismantling it in his farewell address. That dismantling should have been done post Cold War. The "Peace Dividend" as I believe George HW Bush called it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Uncle Joe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
16. I believe Eisenhower as President was intimidated by its' power.
Keep in mind Eisenhower came to office during the height of the McCarthy Era Witch Hunts and Cold War, political momentum was definitely on the side of a strong national defense against both real and imagined enemies.

I believe Eisenhower didn't feel he could prevail against such sentiment and the best he could do was to warn the nation in the hopes that political momentum would swing the other way allowing future leaders to reign in the military industrial complex.

The War with Vietnam and subsequent so called "War Against Drugs" put a stop to any such correction to this economic, political power imbalance.

Thanks for the thread, NNN0LHI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
17. As per Rise and Fall of The Great Powers (Paul Kennedy)
As per Rise and Fall of The Great Powers (Paul Kennedy), there was a three year point in the mid-fifties (57-60, I think) in which both relative and absolute dollars being poured into the military declined. That Ike was indeed reducing both the power and the influence of the military, and that the trend may have actually continued under Kennedy had it not been for the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The author gave a few quotes from the middle of Ike's second term in which he voiced concern about the cost of military spending (and influence) as it would drag down consumer spending, and allow "special interests" (the oldest use of that phrase I'm aware of) far too much access to lawmaking.

So I think he did warn us after a fashion. That we didn't hear should be attributed to us rather than him I would think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AntiFascist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:47 PM
Response to Original message
19. Keep in mind that his Vice President, Richard Nixon....
Edited on Mon Nov-07-11 04:48 PM by AntiFascist
who had originally been placed into politics by Prescott Bush, was in the process of planning a covert invasion of Cuba and setting into motion Operation 40. See the film JFK to understand some of the secret paramilitary operations set into motion around New Orleans. Nixon felt that he would have no problem defeating Kennedy in his run for president in 1960. Perhaps Eisenhower's warning aided the success of JFK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dtexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-07-11 04:56 PM
Response to Original message
20. What happened to the next president?
Ike knew what he was speaking out against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC