Eisenhower’s warning
I don’t post too much about American politics on this blog. There are plenty of blogs that do that…and it seems many of these bloggers are soldiers in a ludicrous ‘culture war’ that aims to divide the country into two sides. Regardless of my views, engaging in those battles is an incredible waste of time and, in my opinion, not at all constructive.
That being said, once in a while I do express my concerns and personal viewpoints about what is happening to America. I also think that looking back and analyzing history can be very illuminating.
Most everybody has seen this, or at least read the transcript of it. In 1961, U.S. President Eisenhower delivered is famous exit speech where he warned Americans of the influence of the military-industrial complex (if embedded video below is broken, click here).
In the councils of government, we must guard against 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.
Our nation has drifted so far from the ideal of limiting power. Nowadays, many Americans advocate the augmentation of executive power, especially with regards to how to deal with threats of terrorism. Or, if people are against increasing government power, they do so in a partisan fashion. They think that as long as their candidate is the one with the power that everything will be okay. Hillary might as well be married to George W. Bush…America has been duped into thinking they are significantly different. Whatever powers are handed to Bush are going to be inherited by the next President.
Click here for complete transcript of Eisenhower’s speech.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am a 2 tour Vietnam Veteran who recently retired after 36 years of working in the Defense Industrial Complex on many of the weapons systems being used by our forces as we speak. I believed another Vietnam could be avoided with defined missions and the best armaments in the world.
It made no difference.
We have bought into the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). If you would like to read how this happens please see:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703
Through a combination of public apathy and threats by the MIC we have let the SYSTEM get too large. It is now a SYSTEMIC problem and the SYSTEM is out of control. Government and industry are merging and that is very dangerous.
There is no conspiracy. The SYSTEM has gotten so big that those who make it up and run it day to day in industry and government simply are perpetuating their existance.
The politicians rely on them for details and recommendations because they cannot possibly grasp the nuances of the environment and the BIG SYSTEM.
So, the system has to go bust and then be re-scaled, fixed and re-designed to run efficiently and prudently, just like any other big machine that runs poorly or becomes obsolete or dangerous.
This situation will right itself through trauma. I see a government ENRON on the horizon, with an associated house cleaning.
The next president will come and go along with his appointees and politicos. The event to watch is the collapse of the MIC.
For more details see:
http://rosecoveredglasses.blogspot.com/2006/11/odyssey-of-armaments.html
Ken…thanks for your comments…I will check out those articles and your blog. I’m always interested in hearing the perspective of those with first-hand experience.
I like your system description very much…I agree.
Hear, hear. I am in complete agreement with you about the divisive nature of politics. If you view my blog from around 2002, you will observe a time when I believed the opposite, but my ranting did nothing to change anything. It is practically impossible to have a meeting of the minds when there is a factional element. This is, after all, what politics is all about. I think all meaningful political discussion should open with the following:
1. Do we agree on the goals of a particular political issue?
2. Do we agree with the justifications for a particular political issue?
If ‘no’ to either of these, there is little point in continuing any discussion. So much of political inclination is belief-based. Reason acts more to cloak beliefs with words than to justify these beliefs. Whereever there are strongly held beliefs there is little hope in discovering a mind open to change or consideration.