This is pretty sad coming from an assistant professor at our Naval War College:
IN 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower left office warning of the growing power of the military-industrial complex in American life. Most people know the term the president popularized, but few remember his argument.
In his farewell address, Eisenhower called for a better equilibrium between military and domestic affairs in our economy, politics and culture. He worried that the defense industry’s search for profits would warp foreign policy and, conversely, that too much state control of the private sector would cause economic stagnation. He warned that unending preparations for war were incongruous with the nation’s history. He cautioned that war and warmaking took up too large a proportion of national life, with grave ramifications for our spiritual health.
Even fewer remember that President Eisenhower also believed that the threats to our nation absolutely required a military-industrial complex:
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. [Emphasis added]
Eisenhower continued:
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 of 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 we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
We needed our military and our arms industry. Fancy that.
Do we no longer have an imperative for our military and arms industry? How many more troops should die because we don't equip them and train them to win and survive when we send them into battle?
Or what don't we want to do that we do now with our military? What ally should be abandoned? What enemy or potential enemy should be allowed to run free or do what they please?
Indeed, how many of the enemy or simple innocents unlucky to be on a battlefield should die because we lack the training and weaponry to fight precisely and win conventional battles quickly?
I don't find it worrisome that after more than a decade of war our people seem to still admire our troops who sacrifice for our nation. Was it really better when our culture blamed troops and despised them for fighting a war their civilian leaders sent them to fight?
I'm more worried about leaders who compare our troops to Nazis and believe any charge leveled at our troops while ignoring the many crimes of our enemies.
I'm more worried about those of us who glorify only soldiers (or those who pretend to be soldiers) who claim they committed war crimes.
We're really a "militarized" society as Eisenhower foresaw because of the new military-industrial complex? Hardly. The author of the article even writes about all the warnings that did not come to pass:
The military-industrial complex has not emerged in quite the way Eisenhower envisioned.
Fancy that. Indeed, the only thing he can point to is his belief that our society glorifies war and warriors.
I think there is an imperative need to get a grip on reality.
UPDATE: Yeah, how's this for glorifying those who wear our nation's uniforms?
