Part Two, Section 9
In his final address to the nation in January of 1961, World War II winning general and outgoing President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower famously stated that "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." (Click here to watch the excerpt from the speech starting at 6:30 and continuing until 9:05. To follow along with the text of the speech, click here and scroll down to IV.)
Today, the United States military budget accounts for 20% of the entire $3 trillion federal budget. According to one estimate, the amount of money the US spends on defense is not only more than any other country, but it is more than the total defense spending of all the next 15 countries combined.
To what extent has Eisenhower's warning from 50 years ago proved true today? Is this an issue that should be of great, of mild, or of no concern to the American citizen? Why?
(In fact, very liberal Rep. Barney Frank and very conservative Rep. Ron Paul, who very rarely agree on anything, have teamed up over this exact issue. You can read their joint column here.)
7 comments:
Oceania is a nation built on a military industrial complex, something that includes things "economic, political, and even spiritual." Eisenhower was completely correct when he said that we must ensure that our country doesn't head in this direction. Our government and economy has increasingly relied on the use of the military for political and economic reasons.
The economic benefits from a Military Industrial Complex are had to miss. American industry has increasingly moved in the direction of becoming a defense industry; an industry more and more Americans are becoming employed by. Many people credit the end of the Great Depression not towards FDR's New Deal programs, but rather to World War II, when industry was kicked into full gear. This pattern, as Eisenhower feared, has become commonplace in American culture. Governments dish out not just billions, but trillions of dollars to private contractors in order to fund our "defense". The defense industry has effectively become the opiate of our elected officials.
Which brings us to political benefits of a military industrial complex. The last time the United States had a President who didn't go to war, just by glancing at this chart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations), seems to be William Henry Harrison, and that's because he died after only 32 days on the job. Presidents experience a MASSIVE boost in popularity because of wars, as they tend to unify the nation. By the same token, Congresspersons fight constantly for defense appropriations, which are often unneeded (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/rooney-leads-vote-to-defy-boehner-cancel-fighter-1259698.html) because they need to bring jobs to their districts. It has become a vicious circle between economic and political benefits that has perpetuated this system which has destroyed the US's moral authority abroad and so many of our young men and women.
I agree with Kalind insofar as this argument is concerned. Listening to Eisenhower's speech is truly chilling in that everything that he warned against has become true today. We, as a country, rely on imports from especially China for so many things, yet we have created ourselves the most costly, domineering, productive military industrial complex in the world. It is similarly chilling to think that this military industrial complex relies entirely on the efficiency of killing machies. The better aircraft, the better guns, the better missiles, and, indeed, the better nuclear weapons have launched us to the top. Other nations fear us because, as Eisenhower said, they are afraid for their own well-being should they come into conflict with the United States. We spend a disgusting amount of money on this complex, yet, like Kalind said, it is remarkably good at creating and sustaining jobs and industry. It is true that the people rally around Presidents the moment a declaration of war is announced and, the common belief is, we do not lose (despite historical precedent indicating this isn't true at all). War is fundamentally wrong, playing God by taking the lives of others is fundamentally wrong, putting our own in harms way is fundamentally wrong, yet those who would oppose it aren't "patriotic." As a country, we are indeed spiritually, politically, and economically addicted to the benefits of this industrial complex, one that seems to have taken on a life of its own that cannot hope to be harnessed any time soon.
First off, here's a little tidbit I noticed. "I agree with Kalind insofar as this argument is concerned."
What's that even supposed to mean?!
I'm going to go ahead and play some Devil's Advocate here. Maybe it's a good thing that we spend so much money on the Defense industry, because it is such a reliable source of jobs. There will be no point in time in the foreseeable future in which the weapon and martial action becomes irrelevant, so we could very well become a defense-based country. As long as there is some "threat" looming, whether it be the British, the Communists, Obama, or China, people will want some form of protection, and that comes in the form of those better weapons. We don't need weapons to actually kill people, we need weapons so we present such a well defended target that we don't have to. And occasionally, when we do have conflict, we will always be prepared.
A senior last year had a shirt with a picture of the pyramids at Giza and a subtitle that read, "Slavery: gets [feces] done." Isn't that what guns do? Can't that (the Defense industry) be our "curious practice" just like the South had slavery?
This warning is very relevant to the American citizen today. I have to disagree with Carlo when he mentions that the creation of excessive military production "is such a reliable source of jobs." It can probably be agreed on that 20% of 3 trillion dollars for "military defense" is excessive. Kalind has already stated some possible reasons why the budget would increase, but I'd like to compare it to the development of a bureaucracy. You have a core of state officials who need more people to run the government efficiently. Eventually, however, extra positions and empty jobs are created under the guise of need. "The bureaucracy is expanding, to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy." Eventually, you will end up with an excess that is difficult to cut. This is happening in the Pentagon today, making Eisenhower's statement relevant.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/10/nation/la-na-pentagon-cuts-20100810
This issue is extremely relevant to the American citizen as it is concerning "putting the money where your mouth is." Since we are putting our money behind the military complex conglomerate, the American people need to be able to back up why we're spending so much money on this. If you ask someone, most people would just say we're spending all this money "to prevent another 9/11" or to make a "safer and more peaceful world." However these are just talking points that Eisenhower warned about. The people basing their facts from the politicians and military complex is a catastrophe in itself. Citizens need to analyze the actual amount needed and consider not just what the politicians are saying but what they think, the actual numbers and the voices of non politicians.
(Gideon Gross)
The U.S military Budget is of great importance to the U.S.A but I would have to agree with Keen that our budget is unneccassary for a country of our power. The U.S. is arguably the most powerful nation on the Earth yet we spend money on the military like we are being invaded. We are not a country like Israel who spends almost 10% og its GDP compared to the U.S. 3%. Israel is a country sorrounded by enemies and is always on alert for attacks because of its small size and small population. America has less to worry about its protection because of the large size of its population and military. Americas most determined and dangerous enemies are small groups of terrorist and not entire nations. America has a economic and population advantage over most countries and has very little to worry about except the possibility of a terrorist attack by a few determined individuals
Post a Comment