The Military-Industrial Complex

Users who are viewing this thread

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
In 1961, 50 years ago, President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a Republican, and a man who was deeply involved in the favorable outcome of WWII warned the Nation of the rise of the "Military-Industrial Complex" in his farewell address.

This is a fantastic article, The Tyranny of Defense, Inc, if you would like something to ponder about the history of the U.S.. No, it was not all our fault. The Soviet Union was there egging us on in the beginning. But today the War Machine is alive and well. The cost of the Iraq/Afganistan war is at least $1 Trillion. Some observes believe the cost could reach 2 or 3 trillion dollars. Should we bankrupt ourselves for the benefit of big business? By defeating Iraq and struggling in Afganistan have we increased our security in the big scheme of things as compared to the stress on our economy? I'm doubtful.

Largely overlooked by most commentators was a second theme that Eisenhower had woven into his text. The essence of this theme was simplicity itself: spending on arms and armies is inherently undesirable. Even when seemingly necessary, it constitutes a misappropriation of scarce resources. By diverting social capital from productive to destructive purposes, war and the preparation for war deplete, rather than enhance, a nation’s strength. And while assertions of military necessity might camouflage the costs entailed, they can never negate them altogether.
“Every gun that is made,” Eisenhower told his listeners, “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.” Any nation that pours its treasure into the purchase of armaments is spending more than mere money. “It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.” To emphasize the point, Eisenhower offered specifics:



The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities … We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.
When President Obama was first elected he asked his generals what are his options in Afghanistan. He was only given one choice, the surge. According to Bob Woodward, Obama complained, "What's my options? You've only given me one option."


The article's conclusion is that funding the Military-Industrial Complex does not benefit average Americans, in fact hurts them. I'll add that the MIC has the full backing of the Republican Party.:

Furthermore, military Keynesianism has proved to be a bust. In contrast to the 1950s, military extravagance is depleting rather than adding to the nation’s wealth. In the Eisenhower era, the United States, a creditor nation, produced at home the essentials defining the American way of life—everything from oil to cars to televisions. Today, we import far more than we export, with ever-increasing debt as one result. Furthermore, in the 1950s, we were mostly at peace; today we are mostly at war—and, as a result, more of the resources provided to the military go abroad and stay there.
the grandchildren of Ozzie and Harriet, coping with 9.8 percent unemployment and contemplating the implications of trillion-dollar deficits, see little benefit from our exorbitant Pentagon outlays. If paying Pashtun drivers to truck fuel from Pakistan into Afghanistan is producing any positive economic side effects, the American worker is not among the beneficiaries.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 5
    Replies
  • 392
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
The important point to take away is the next time a politician tells you "we can't afford it", you ask "can't afford what, one military aircraft that will equals building 30 schools"? :willy_nilly:
 

Zorak

The cake is a metaphor
Messages
9,923
Reaction score
1
Tokenz
0.01z
I've read this, and it's a great and thought-provoking article. Eisenhower was a terrific writer.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Thread revival-
To reinforce my view that war harms everyone involved, an excellent article on the effects of war in Newsweek- The Things War Makes You See. A story of a war reporter who has entertained thoughts of suicide since reporting on the variety of wars involving the U.S. It's more than the desire for death, it's the desire to remove the mental pain. It's a downer article but food for thought.

This morning MSNBC reported that the suicide rate in the military for the last year equals one soldier per day, more deaths than attributed to combat.
 

Mercury

Active Member
Messages
1,586
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I always loved that speech. Power and money ... power and money.

Herman Goering also made a statement that I think falls into this whole thing ...

“Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or fascist dictatorship, or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denouce the peace makers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”
 
78,874Threads
2,185,387Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top