Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Dwight Eisenhower's view of the "Military Industrial Complex" misunderstood

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 » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 07:09 AM
Original message
Dwight Eisenhower's view of the "Military Industrial Complex" misunderstood
In 1961 President Dwight Eisenhower gave his farewell address to the nation and left us with some words of wisdom. Included in his address was the coining of the phrase, "military industrial complex." I'm not sure if he was actually the first one to use the term, but he certainly made it famous. Often his speech is referenced to make the point that having a MIC is a bad thing, but that wasn't his point at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

In the interest of completeness I have posted his entire speech below, but the MIC starts being discussed about halfway down the page.

In short, Dwight Eisenhower recognized that with the boom in industry and technology of the 1900's - private industry began taking on an unprecedented roll militaries all over the world. That, in age of swords, cannon's, and later muskets and rifles armies could be formed and properly armed rather quickly. But that all changed as the modern world reshaped, and now we have everything from high tech fighter jets, bombers, sophisticated tanks, ICBMs, submarines, aircraft carriers, etc. etc.

Thus, in the modern age brought about the necessity of having a military industrial complex. BUT! He also warned against the "undo influence" of the MIC.

One can fairly argue that the "undue influence" has already been taking place. But one cannot reasonably argue that Dwight Eisenhower was against having military industrial complex. You may of course argue that you, yourself are against us having an arms industry. But you cannot cite Eisenhower of also being against it.

Take note of emphasized portions in bold

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after a half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with Congress ends in a feeling -- on my part -- of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. 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.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

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. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

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. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual --is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

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. 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. My note: Again, recognizing that private industry will continue to play an enormous role

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. 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.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

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.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations' great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration: 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. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and 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.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
PADemD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 07:34 AM
Response to Original message
1. Eisenhower Quote
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

Dwight D. Eisenhower
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Th1onein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 07:37 AM
Response to Original message
2. Bunk.
eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rurallib Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 07:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. I read somewhere that he wanted to put "congressional" in that statement
also. But aides fought with him all day to keep it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JohnyCanuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 07:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. Newsflash - Security and Liberty ain't prospering folks.
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.

Well security and liberty in the USA ain't prospering now and on the current path they are increasingly unlikely to prosper in the future, and that goes whether Obama is president or Jesus Christ himself. And as far as "peaceful methods and goals" that's a fucking joke that only someone who has naively bought into the rah, rah, rah, wave the flag, America the Beautiful, 4th of July, rockets red glare bullshit, propaganda believes anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 07:43 AM
Response to Original message
5. by who?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zipplewrath Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
6. Poorly understood by everyone
I suspect even Eisenhower wouldn't recognize the industry today. The MIC is poorly understood around here at DU, and I have often thought it could use some "explaining". But DU tends to be a lousy place for long involved conversations. The truth is, for all the respect I have for Zinn, there was some things about the military, war, and our history that he either ignored, or missed.

You cannot disconnect our MIC from our economy, the two are intertwined so tightly that they are indistiguishable. And that becomes more true everyday. The reality is, that it is so important, it shouldn't be under the direct control of the DoD as much as it is. That is what causes our military to be so politicized, and what many other countries manage to avoid. Careers are made in the military via procurement and that is a serious problem for our military, not to mention our government.

And this is nothing new. Jefferson was convinced to start the West Point Academy not for military reasons, but because he wanted a national college. Lewis and Clark were sent on their journey under the guise of a military mission. Washington didn't send the police out to confront the Whiskey rebellion, he raised an army. The military has been involved deeply with our economic system since they first started printing "Continentals" during the revolution. Eisenhower just came along at a particular time when the sytem was becoming more formalized and politicized.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The_Commonist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message
7. No, he wasn't misunderstood. Don't try to muddy the waters.
"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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

That's pretty clear.
And now, that mess in Afghanistan is a direct result of that influence.
And that even worse mess in Iraq.
We did not have to start two wars because a bunch of malcontents stole a few planes and committed a crime with them. We started two wars because the war-mongers allowed that crime to happen, and then snookered the American people into believing that we were all gonna die in our sleep. THAT is exactly what he was talking about. Not that private enterprise is good at designing and manufacturing a better mousetrap...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomWV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:14 AM
Response to Original message
8. I think your's is an amazing misreading of the speech.
I am amazed that you have only seen what you wanted to in that speech and simply ignored its focus.

Did you not see the sentence that described the Military Industrial complex, the part where he said "But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only"? Eisenhower himself started by calling the MOiC a threat. Then how does he sum up his feelings about the MiC? "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." is what he says next. So its sort of a mystery to me how you can say "one cannot reasonably argue that Dwight Eisenhower was against having military industrial complex" when it is clear he considered it a threat to Government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xchrom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. indeed. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
10. close to 5 trillion dollars have been sucked out of our economy since 2001
because of the military/oil industrial complex`s wars in iraq and afghanistan...

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home


that is what ike was talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flamingdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:42 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. badda bing nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VMI Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
12. Fucking ridiculous.
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
keith the dem Donating Member (587 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
13. This was at the height of the cold war,
only a fool would have advocated totally doing away with the MIC. He was simply asking for balance.

The cold war is long gone, and we are more out of balance than any time in our history.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #13
17. Remember the "peace dividend?"
When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, there was talk of a "peace dividend." We were supposed to save tons of money that went to defend us from the Rooskies, but now that the Rooskies no longer threatened us, we didn't need all that defense spending. We were dancing in the streets--more money for education, health care, and the environment. "Hurray" we shouted. Now we can live like civilized people!

But MIC-connected politicians told us there would be no "peace dividend" and MIC spending continued. Even increased.

But of course, we had the First WTC bombing in 1993: When the "communists" left, the "terrorists" arrived.

America--always in need of a "boogieman" to justify corporate welfare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tsiyu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
14. Real happenin' avatar there, Shorty


Pick that up at Porn for Woodchucks dot com?



I couldn't really understand your writing. Lots of missed words and jumbled ones in that screed. Just a hint: proofread it if it's going to be an OP. We "readers" appreciate it.

Ike's words I understand very well.


I'm not sure I get what you're driving at in your incoherent ramble upstairs, but if you're going to start complaining that we are not spending enough on the DoD, well, I can't help you, Son. The military has bankrupted this nation.

If you think we aren't bleeding to death on military expenditures, please seek psychiatric assistance for that severe delusional disorder.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Raineyb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
15. What utter bull and to be expected by someone whose avatar is showing their
ass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 09:11 AM
Response to Original message
16. Sorry USArmyParatrooper I want to put you out of a job regardless
of old speeches. I mean really wouldn't you rather have a resume that says you know how to do something constructive instead of, I know how to kill people? Try something new, you might like something that does not involve making carnage and orphans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. That's cool, I don't mind. Eisenhower didn't.
BTW, most MOS's in the military don't involve killing and pertain to skills in the civilian world. Me, I chose infantry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MyNameGoesHere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 03:12 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Even the cook facilitates in killing
the old team effort thing. I guess some are less directly involved but hey in the end the goal in war is....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaksavage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
18. Read Legacy of Ashes
History of the CIA.
Ike got screwn by Dulles brothers who preyed upon his fear of the reds to wreck havoc and kill hundreds of souls on covert missions into Russia and its neighbors. As well as Asia, etc.
He believed and they took advantage to run wild with ill fated missions Finally toward the end of his time in office he began to see he had been lied to and the CIA was totally out of his command or control.
Close down the CIA, decades of fuck ups. Few successes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Excellent book.
That book made me think of the 3 stooges out to play spies.

This nation pour billions of dollars (if not trillions) into an agency that, in the end, produced more failures than successes, caused more problems than solved and got more people killed than saved.

That crazy ass agency should be dismantled lock stock and barrel, followed by HLS. Two gigantic useless money suckers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
19. Beating a dead horse...
Edited on Mon Jul-26-10 11:18 AM by Javaman
You couldn't convince people in another thread of your position so you have to start a continuation thread to make your unsubstantiated point.

Well played. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:26 AM
Response to Original message
21. Straw man. The argument isn't that the MIC should cease to exist; it's that its power is unchecked.
And that's exactly what Ike warns against.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. Funny you call it strawman, yet you're the only one who agrees
with my interpretation.

Read through the thread and then tell me it's strawman. I'm on my iPhone do I'll give more responses tonight.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Well if no one is calling for the complete dismantling of the MIC
Edited on Mon Jul-26-10 11:49 AM by EstimatedProphet
then why did you post this? That's like saying "Eisenhower's farewell address doesn't really talk about the properties of light refraction underwater, it's about control of the military industrial complex." No one is credibly arguing what you're claiming the speech isn't about anyway, so why even bring it up?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. It's the ego echo chamber.
Trying to confirm his own position with himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. So it would appear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. On the contrary, that's exacty what many argue for
And often they cite Eisenhower as being against the MIC.

Are you blind? Look how many in this very thread are making that claim.

I asserted that:

1: Eisenhower spoke of the necessity of the MIC
2: Eisenhower warned of the undue influence of the MIC

Agree? OK. Have you even read the comments in this thread?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Many? Not exactly
I see a bunch of people claiming that the MIC has greatly overstepped its bounds - NOT that it should be done away with in entirety. If that's not what you meant, then I misunderstood you and I apologize, But if you believe that arguing that the MIC has overstepped its bounds is the same as saying it should be abolished, I contend that those 2 positions are not the same.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #28
29. We're taking about two different things
1: What I interpret Eisenhower to be saying. Do you disagree with it? Look at the avalanche of flames I recieved for pointing out he also spoke of the *necessity* of the MIC. Eisenhower was not at all ambiguous on this point.

2: That some on DU want the MIC and/or the miliary in general disbanded entirely. I would say the're a minority on DU, but not an anomaly. But this also isn't the subject of the thread. It's the common misconception that Eisenhower was opposed to the MIC.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EstimatedProphet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 03:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. Well, that's what I was getting at:
1: What I interpret Eisenhower to be saying. Do you disagree with it? Look at the avalanche of flames I recieved for pointing out he also spoke of the *necessity* of the MIC. Eisenhower was not at all ambiguous on this point.
I don't disagree with it a bit. However, that's not what the avalanche of flames was about.

2: That some on DU want the MIC and/or the miliary in general disbanded entirely.
Very few in my experience, and I also disagree if you think they are taken seriously.

I would say the're a minority on DU, but not an anomaly.
That's not been my experience in the least. I would say that the number of such posters is vanishingly small.

But this also isn't the subject of the thread. It's the common misconception that Eisenhower was opposed to the MIC.
And again, I have to disagree. I don't think it's a common misconception at all. In fact, I have not heard of anyone seriously claiming that people think Eisenhower wanted to disband the military until this thread - and that, from you. This is why I think you're tilting at windmills with this argument.

If I'm wrong on this, and there's a bunch of posters who believe that Eisenhower was calling for disbanding the military, please point to it. I simply haven't seen this before.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 04:36 PM
Response to Original message
32. Credit where credit is due, Paratrooper...
Edited on Mon Jul-26-10 04:43 PM by truth2power
First of all, I have to say that I couldn't disagree with you more regarding your stance on the Wikileaks issue (per your previous thread).

That being said, I'll give credit where it's due. I think you are correct in your analysis of Pres. Eisenhower's speech... the operative phrase is "undue influence". This, BTW, is the kind of thing that often shows up on the reading sections of various standardized tests, where the testee has to do a lot of parsing to determine exactly what is being argued.

Here's my take, starting with, "But threats, new in kind..."

Up until WWII (the last "world" conflict), the US had no arms industry. Companies had the ability, if needed, to turn plowshares into swords. A slight digression, here: I live in Cincinnati, OH. We have an awesome Museum Center here, part of which includes extensive, life-size dioramas of Cincinnati as it was during WWII. To support the war effort, many companies here simply shelved their ordinary production and re-tooled entirely to produce war materiel. One that comes to mind was a clothing factory where the seamstresses began producing nothing but parachutes. Many others, but the specifics escape me at the moment.

Eisenhower continues: We can no longer risk improvising war materiel at a moments notice. We have, therefore, been compelled to create an arms industry. The confluence of this industry and an immense military establishment (the military/industrial complex) while being recognized as necessary , also has grave implications, which are that it will exert undue influence
in the councils of government.

We must make sure that we compel the meshing of the military/industrial complex with our peaceful methods and goals.

*****

I think Eisenhower saw the military industrial complex as a fait accompli and cautioned Americans to deprive it of unwarranted influence in government. Eisenhower was prescient, of course. He probably knew that the councils of government were irredeemably corrput, and therein lay the disaster.




edit> To add that the "Wikileaks" reference is to another thread started by the OP.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
USArmyParatrooper Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. Well I appreciate you being fair minded and not reactionary like some
i.e. "bunk" and "fucking ridiculous" and other derogatory commentary. I also give you kudos for admitting you agree with me given the flame fest that ensued.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jul-26-10 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #33
34. thanks. n/t



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 Fri Apr 19th 2024, 04:14 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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