What Ike Got Right
By JAMES LEDBETTER
LAST week the National Archives released a trove of drafts and notes
that shed new light on President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell
address, in which he warned America about the "military-industrial
complex."
The release comes just in time for the speech's 50th anniversary next
month. And so while scholars and historians use these documents to
scrutinize the evolution of the speech's famous phrase, it's worth
asking a broader question: does America still have a military-
industrial
complex, and should we be as worried about it as Eisenhower was?
By one measure, the answer to the first question is yes. Over the past
50 years there have been very few years in which the United States has
spent less on the military than it did the year before.
This has remained true whether the country is actively fighting a war,
whether it has an obvious and well-armed enemy or whether Democrats or
Republicans run the White House and Congress. Despite regular
expectations that the United States will enjoy a peace dividend, we
continue to spend more on the military than the countries with the
next
15 largest military budgets combined.
Such perpetual growth seems to confirm Eisenhower's concern about the
size and influence of the military. It used to be, he said, that
armies
should grow and shrink as needed; in the Biblical metaphor of the
speech, he observed that "American makers of plowshares could, with
time
and as required, make swords as well."
But World War II and the early cold war changed that dynamic, creating
what Eisenhower called "a permanent armaments industry of vast
proportions." It is not a stretch to believe that this armaments
industry - which profits not only from domestic sales but also from
tens
of billions of dollars in annual exports - manipulates public policy
to
perpetuate itself.
But Eisenhower was concerned about more than just the military's size;
he also worried about its relationship to the American economy and
society, and that the economy risked becoming a subsidiary of the
military. His alarm was understandable: at the time the military
represented over half of all government spending and more than 10
percent of America's gross domestic product.
Today those figures are not quite as troubling. While military
spending
as a percentage of gross domestic product has been going up as a
result
of 9/11 and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the overall trend since
1961 is substantially down, thanks to the tremendous growth in
America's
nonmilitary economy and the shift in government spending to
nonmilitary
expenditures.
Yet spending numbers do not tell the whole story. Eisenhower warned
that
the influence of the military-industrial complex was "economic,
political, even spiritual" and that it was "felt in every city, every
statehouse, every office of the federal government." He exhorted
Americans to break away from our reliance on military might as a
guarantor of liberty and "use our power in the interests of world
peace
and human betterment."
On this score, Eisenhower may well have seen today's America as losing
the battle against the darker aspects of the military-industrial
complex. He was no pacifist, but he was a lifelong opponent of what he
called a "garrison state," in which policy and rights are defined by
the
shadowy needs of an all-powerful military elite.
The United States isn't quite a garrison state today. But Eisenhower
would likely have been deeply troubled, in the past decade, by the
torture at Abu Ghraib, the use of martial authority to wiretap
Americans
without warrants and the multiyear detention of suspects at Guantanamo
Bay without due process.
Finally, even if the economy can bear the immediate costs of the
military, Eisenhower would be shocked at its mounting long-term costs.
Most of the Iraq war expenses were paid for by borrowing, and
Americans
will shoulder those costs, plus interest, for many years to come. *
A strong believer in a balanced budget, Eisenhower in his farewell
address also told Americans to "avoid the impulse to live only for
today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious
resources of tomorrow." Too many of today's so-called fiscal
conservatives conveniently overlook the budgetary consequences of
military spending.
Eisenhower's worst fears have not yet come to pass. But his warning
against the "unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex" is as urgent today as ever.
James Ledbetter is the author of the forthcoming "Unwarranted
Influence:
Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/opinion/14ledbetter.html?_r=1&nl=to...
---
Eisenhower was a real Republican, not a Republitard phony excuse maker
for rich people.
* One thing that happened when Bush Jr. was President is; we finally
paid off the Spanish-American War.
How was the money collected?
One of those nondescript taxes on everyone's phone bills for more than
100 years.
To pay the costs of the war, Congress passed an excise tax on long-
distance phone service.
At the time, it affected only wealthy Americans who owned telephones.
However, the Congress neglected to repeal the tax after the war ended
four months later, and the tax remained in place for over 100 years
until, on August 1, 2006, it was announced that the U.S. Department of
the Treasury and the IRS would no longer collect the tax.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
So the question becomes:
How long will it take to pay off the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars?
Answer: Not just longer than you'll live, but longer than any of your
kids will live.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment