Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th President of the United States, at the end of his second Presidential term, delivered his farewell address to the nation. The generation of the day was apparently more focused on the up and coming next President, John F. Kennedy then they were with the warning that President Eisenhower issued. The President brought forth a potent message on the need to have a strong and responsive military supported by an enduring weapons industry; however, he also stated that we must guard against the inappropriate influence by the military-industrial complex .
Since President Eisenhower’s final speech as the President of the United States, people like R. Fuller and Andrew J. Bacevich have latched on to industries unfitting influence side of Eisenhower’s message and sounded the alarm bell while others like James Jay Crafano have latched on to the strong armaments industry side of the argument with little consideration for the other portion. Without the balance that was brought when Eisenhower’s final speech was delivered we will have a lopsided view of this issue.
President Eisenhower who also served as the Supreme Allied Commander of the Allied forces in Europe during WWII had over 50 years of military experience from his time in the Army through his years as Commander in Chief. President Eisenhower seemed to view the military and industry and their interrelation as being on a balance scale. On one side of the scale he clearly viewed and understood the need for a strong and responsive military as seen by the following statement: “A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment.
Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action… We could no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. ” There is no doubt that President Eisenhower was fully convinced of the necessity for a full-bodied military institution and a great arms industry. During his presidency he increased the number of nuclear weapons the U. S. possessed and he also used the CIA in covert actions around the globe, however; he also reduced defense spending by the time he departed the White House.
This is an example of President Eisenhower’s balanced approach. It is apparent that during his time in the Army and as President of the United States he ascertained the potential for the military-industrial complex to go awry-“… We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, … by the military-industrial complex. The disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ” As the Lady of Justice holds a scale in her hand it seems that President Eisenhower in his concluding speech held a scale out for the American people when he made the statements he did about the U. S military and the military-industrial complex.
In short his message was one of balance. R. Fuller in his excerpt from “A Grunch of Giants” uses hyperbole to get his point across. Fuller seems to be in agreement with Eisenhower’s concern of the rise of power and influence by the military-industrial complex. Fuller uses different terminology; however, he is clearly talking about the military-industrial complex. Fuller laments how the military-industrial complex “consists of the corporately interlocked owners of a vast invisible empire” in essence having global reach and influence.
He goes on to state how the military-industrial complex even enters into “pregraduation employment contracts with almost all promising university science students, it monopolize all the special theoretical know-how to exploit its vast inventory of already acquired invisible know-how technology. ” Fuller in his excerpt summarized comments from President Eisenhower that appear to me to be a bit out of context. President Eisenhower did not say that the military-industrial complex was “… malignant economic organism. ”
There is no apparent balance in Fuller’s excerpt about an appropriately apportioned military-industrial complex and this is where the major contrast between Fuller and Eisenhower arises. Fuller is concerned and against the current and growing power and influence of the militaryindustrial complex. He stated that the military-industrial complex “could make the world work for everyone and at a much more profitable level than realized from weapons production.
The implication being that instead of focusing on defense and weapons the industrial-military complex could focus on making the world a better place without the former. Andrew J. Bacevich like Fuller emphasizes the undue power and influence held and wielded by the industrial-military machine. He opined how we used the threat of Soviet aggression as the “centerpiece of U. S. national-security doctrine” during the Eisenhower Presidency. According to Bacevich these scare tactics were not only used then but have been in use since then to present day, to fund and build the military-industrial complex.
Bacevich highlights the fact that the national-security state referring in essence to the military-industrial complex continues to increase. He cites a Washing Post article that the intelligence community has: “become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work. ” 14 Andrew J. Bacevich. “The Tyranny of Defense. ” The Atlantic, June 2011, http:// www. theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-ofdefense-inc/308342/
This is a great example of misplaced power that President Eisenhower warned the American people of. Furthermore, Basevich discusses how once senior officers retire from active duty military service, some are enticed by well-paying jobs to join the defense industry and sell the latest defense weapons and technology. This issue is truly a slippery slope. The retired senior officer can exploit his vast network of relationships and connections within the military and exercise his/her influence especially with those he may have mentored that are in key acquisition positions.
On the other hand there are benefits of having retired officer employed by the defense industry such as just knowing how that particular branch works and the 20-30 years of established people network. Bacevich implies that the unemployment rate, trillion-dollar deficit and the number of people below the poverty line are directly related to the fusion among the military and corporations and the use of scare tactics with the perpetual march to war. There appears to be no balance to Bacevich’s article.
He highlighted the undue power and influence wielded by the industrial-military industry without addressing the need to be ready to defend ourselves from our enemies in order to promote peace and human betterment and this where his viewpoint is in direct contrast to President Eisenhower’s view. James Carafano in his article “Five Steps to Save America’s Defense Industrial Base” provides steps to keep the industrial base from collapse. He highlights the fact that we can no longer “affordably produce the cutting-edge military systems that once gave the American military an unassailable advantage.
According to Carafano our arms are not mighty and are not ready for instant action; the opposite of what President Eisenhower said we needed. Furthermore, he lines out that the Pentagon has “under-funded procurement by about $50 billion a year. ” Moreover, the U. S. government restricts defense companies ability to sell their wares oversees. In essence Carafano views the military-industrial complex on the verge of collapse and in his article provides steps to remedy this scenario.
Carafano is in clear agreement with President Eisenhower on the need to be mighty and ready for instant action and the need for a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions, however; Carafano’s article does not cover or address the other side of the scale; the unwarranted influence and rise of misplaced power by the military-industrial complex. To say that the military-industrial complex is out of control in its spending, power, and influence and not recognize the justifiable need to have and maintain a strong and responsive military supported by a strong and healthy military-industrial complex is fruitless.
Fuller and Bacevich bring substantive, warranted, and credible arguments that agree with Eisenhower in the need to guard against the inappropriate power and influence of the military-industrial complex; however, America can’t just disregard our defense. Carafano’s warranted concern of the impending collapse of the military-industrial complex provides a great five step plan to bring industry back to health; however, he doesn’t address the undo influence, power, and other ills of the industry in his plan. As Eisenhower promoted you can’t have one without considering and having the balance of the other.
