Fifty-one years ago today, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued his final, prescient warning about the rising power of the military industrial complex. More than half a century later, we find ourselves in a political system which has ignored Eisenhower’s sound advice as the influence of the war industry on our society reaches a crescendo. Nowhere is this “disastrous rise of misplaced power” more apparent than in the debate about the Pentagon budget taking place in Washington, D.C.
Eisenhower’s final speech is worth quoting at length:
“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 State house, 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.”
“[I]nfluence…sought or unsought” is certainly a generous description of activity of war industry giants, which was already under way as Ike gave his speech. Were he in office today, Eisenhower likely would have foregone this nod to the possibility of naive goodwill from war profiteering companies. In the first three quarters of 2011, the military aerospace sector spent more than $46 million on lobbying, with war profiteering giant Lockheed Martin accounting for almost a quarter of that spending. In no way can we imply that today’s war industry is acquiring “unsought” influence. They’re working to buy our elected officials outright.
What’s more, this massive (yet “legal”) corruption yields results. During the deficit committee debates, everyone from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta to House Armed Services Committee chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) cried very public crocodile tears at the thought of reducing the Pentagon’s spending to even the bloated levels seen at the height of the Iraq War. When the Pentagon announced a spending plan that allowed the military budget to continue to grow despite the massive economic and unemployment crises, McKeon took to the op-ed pages to raise the specters of a “hollow force,” a broken Internet, closed sea lanes and threats to our access to outer space thanks to a slowing of the growth of the military budget (along with the profits of some of his biggest contributors…I mean, c’mon, it takes a lot of money to keep your friends in the richest 0.01 percent.).
Eisenhower’s speech was so prophetic that even he could not have anticipated just how deep the rot would be in 2012. Some of his warnings, which seemed dire at the time, sound downright quaint compared to the disastrous diversion of national wealth to the war profiteers. For example, in a separate speech to the Society of Newspaper Editors, Eisenhower said:
“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. …We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.”
Those were the days, eh? Today’s war industry has perfected the pillaging of the hungry to an absolutely repulsive level by comparison. At best, each modern Lockheed Martin F-22 fighter jet costs the taxpayers $137 million, or 22.6 million bushels of wheat in today’s market. At worst, the jets–which have yet to fly in combat–have a lifetime cost of $678 million, or 112 million bushels of wheat. This massive theft takes place as the highest numbers of American households ever are now classified as “food insecure.”
The Pentagon’s plan protects the profits of the war industry–whose leading CEOs make so much from taxpayers that they put Goldman Sachs CEOs to shame–under the euphemism of “preserving our industrial base.” That’s total garbage language. If the U.S. were interested in protecting our industrial base in a way that put most people to work, we’d be heavily investing in civilian research and development to help our manufacturing sector gain and maintain a competitive edge (And, by the way, if the war industry actually cared about American jobs, they’d stop lobbying against “buy American” provisions in military spending legislation.). Viewed in this light, the Pentagon’s plan is just a profit protection scheme for war profiteers.
Eisenhower was right to be worried. We’re living in his nightmare. The most immediate thing we can do to get out of it is to push back–hard–against this latest attempt by the war industry and their allies to protect their profits at our expense. But the real work we have to undertake is the cultivation of “an alert and knowledgeable citizenry” so we don’t keep getting manipulated into handing over the bread of our mouths and the sweat of our brows to people who have more than enough.
Our War Costs campaign is working hard to get the truth out, and we hope you’ll join us.
Follow Derrick Crowe on Twitter.



24 Comments

Aloha, Derrick… Great job…! It’s been awhile since you’ve last posted here at myFDL…!
“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry “
I think I see where our problem is…
It has been–sorry! Trying to get back in the groove. :P
The Cross of Iron speech is one of my favorites.
It is a shame we let his warnings slip by and didn’t pay them any heed. We’re idiots and will pay the price for being so lazy. Like lemmings though, come November so many of us who read these forums will be voting for Obama thinking he’s a better alternative when they are equally corrupt and self serving.
Such a shame.
*heh* Apparently, ya haven’t missed a beat, tho…! You’re now front-paged again…! ;-)
It is also interesting to note how well written the speech is and how well delivered it is. Most political speeches today don’t even come close to its mastery.
Stop pissing up my back. The Dwightster had eight years to prevent what he instead helped make inevitable.
0 for 44 and counting…
I read that the original wording of Eisenhower’s speech read “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-congressional complex.”
He was advised to take out the word “congressional” and he did so.
He should have left it in.
Much has been made of Eisenhower’s speech, and for good reason. As far as educating people, however … this speech has even been present in the fairly recent documentary film “Why We Fight”, which was screened at mainstream theaters.
It took what? 30 years? to get the American public to begin to understand, slowly, the concept “richest 1% of society gets most of the income, wealth, and proceeds of economic growth”. Trying to get the public to understand the meaning of military procurement numbers, versus the real importance of the big dollar technology programs to our actual security, versus the opportunity cost to civilian society, might take 100 years.
Here are my five reasons for voting for Obama, in spite of his horrible record:
1) The Republican opponent, whoever that person may be, will be infinitely worse. The Republicans are all, “I’ve got mine, so screw you” me-firsters of such low moral character that no feeling human being could ever vote for any of them.
2) The courts, which are already packed with right-wing hacks, will get immeasurably worse under any Republican Administration, especially the Supreme Court.
3) The Occupy movement will thrive better under an Obama Administration than under a Republican one. (Sam Seder convinced me of this.)
4) Obama inspires many people in the world because of his race. I’m not being racist or racial here in spite of how the statement may seem at first glance. I am stating a simple fact. I am one of the people who, rightly or wrongly, felt that Obama’s race was a positive factor. If you believe as I do in equality across the board for all human beings of every category and distinction, then you might think, as I do, that a change from the “old white man” category to anyone of any other category is a good thing. Look at the record: 43 old white men, one black man. Kind of imbalanced, isn’t it? If this makes me a racist, so be it. Obama inspires many people of all races because he’s a black man, and that is indeed a good reason to support him.
5) Telling all those liars on the right to go to hell by voting Obama is a good thing. Every time I hear a lie about Obama I feel more sympathetic about him.
Also, the video here would be much, much better off without the music soundtrack, as it distracts from what Eisenhower is saying in an old recording, may not appeal to everyone who hears it (want to listen a speech with music you find annoying playing over it) and tends to be almost as loud as the Eisenhower recording itself at times.
The video overlay with modern totals is good, though putting more perspective on some of the numbers – what does 46 billion dollars mean in opportunity cost to the domestic US? – would help.
Ah, the Magnificent Mindless ‘Merican Murder Machine.
And let’s not skip the cia coup of the Shah of Iran in ikes term and how that’s worked out.
Peak oil could be drawn out if the military didn’t burn every other gallon of oil we consume
He also assassinates Americans with impunity. I won’t vote for one or another evil clown.
…if the military didn’t burn every other gallon of oil we consume…
That’s a fact that is not emphasized enough…! Whose interests are our vast MIC/Intel Apparatchik really protecting…? *gah*
Though the MSM try mightily to ignore his warning, it wasn’t entirely missed. Here’s how the WaPo describes Ron Paul during last night’s debate:
Even when they feel compelled to acknowledge Ike, they still try to dismiss him. So sad.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-gets-boos-from-south-carolina-debate-audience-can-he-reclaim-momentum/2012/01/17/gIQAzLW85P_story.html
I must say I do rather like this Ike quote, Aitch…
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it.
Thanks for an excellent post.
The real irony of the “preserving our industrial base” argument is that it rests on experience in WW-2, yet ignores the basic lessons of that conflict. The “industrial base” that won that war was not the specialized “military-industrial base”: it was the civilian sector.
The Germans poured resources into specialized war industries in the 1930s. Development contracts were often awarded as much for the welfare of politically well-connected companies–Germany’s military “industrial base”–as for the needs of the military. As a result, when war broke out, Germany had some better tanks, ships, and planes than we did. But she never had enough of them. So Germany lost the war.
America always had enough of everything, even though we entered the war catastrophically unprepared, if you listen to our politicians, generals, and defense contractors. Yet we came out with the most powerful military in the world and built it up in only three years. By 1944 or so, we had four or five tanks and planes for every one of Germany’s, and Germany’s were not individually good enough to make up the difference. We also had more fuel, more lubricants, more ammunition, more rations, more clothes, more transport–more of everything.
So protecting defense contractor profits at the expense of everything else is–surprise–the exact opposite of the lesson that history appears to teach.
Ike is also responsible for the domino theory speech which let to the nightmare of the Vietnam War.
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/eisenhower-gives-famous-domino-theory-speech
“infinitely worse”? “immeasurably worse”?
How exactly? How much worse could it possibly be?
Obama now claims the power to spy on us and imprison or kill us without charge, much less trial. Economically, he is one of your me-firsters or, worse, one of their servants. He refuses to apply the law to anyone who is wealthy and powerful. He fully intends to stay at war indefinitely and on an ever wisening front.
What is left? Verbiage? I’ll grant you that Obama’s verbiage is not as objectionable as that of his likely Republican opponents. But the man’s words don’t align with his deeds. So how can they be a selling point? At least Obama’s opponents are more straightforward about their oligarchic and autocratic impulses.
I won’t vote for Obama no matter what.
The reluctance of Ike’s successor to play along with that banal theory is what led to the successor’s demise.
Great read Crowe, thanks and welcome back.Highly rcc’d.
If ANYone can’t get the MIC speech and it’s relevance, without having to trash Ike for his well known ‘failures’ and such, then yer just out to yell fire in the theatre . . .
Please people, the diary is Ike’s MIC speech . . . never mind the rest if Ike’s career of dids and did nots . . . it’s all basic history oto us proggies, we know what Ike did and didn’t do . . . you haters are NOT educating us, yer just grousing to hear yer own voices, as usual.
The Supreme Court argument for supporting Obama is a good one. Look at it this way…If a Republican is elected President, it will take years before that President gets to appoint a SCOTUS justice and then more years before suitable cases reach the court for right-wing interpretation. Obama, on the other hand, can dismantle the Bill of Rights immediately by executive order or, with Congress’s help, by legislation. s/
He also said in the same speech,
Quite something to contemplate on a day when massive protests are what stands between us and the recording and movie industries buying out Congress to shut down internet sites for profit.
“Obama inspires many people of all races because he’s a black man”
True.
“and that is indeed a good reason to support him.”
False.