I agree with Danica that President Eisenhower’s speech was motivational by encouraging the next administration avoid bankrupting the nation through the excessive expansion of military buildup, although I do not believe it was his central argument. The title itself, “Military-Industrial Complex Speech,” declares its focus. Eisenhower was an interesting combination of characteristics that made him an effective president for the mainstream population, though his civil rights record was reactive rather than proactive. A civilian might expect a former general and war hero to embrace policies that favor heavy military spending, but Eisenhower was a moderate who believed in “the most bang for the buck” [I see a pun in there]. He was deeply concerned with the escalating arms race and as Danica points out, he declared “we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren” [an argument that continues today in the debate about Social Security reform]. While he emphasizes the importance of America’s military establishment, Eisenhower makes a very telling point: “until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.” Consider what a shift in world view this represents. From colonial times onward, America’s view of the world was “no foreign entanglements.” That view may have made sense when the distance to Europe entailed travel of many weeks. However, after World War II when Europe was as close as a several hour plane flight, the security America felt because its borders were the high seas, no longer applied. The technology of transportation had reduced the size of the globe, so that the idea of “foreign” no longer applied to most the world. With the advent of unmanned missiles that could carry payloads of nuclear weapons, the touch of a button could ignite a weapon of mass destruction that could destroy hundreds of thousands of lives. When the United States declared war on the Axis powers on December 8, 1941, America was militarily unprepared for global warfare. That lack of preparedness in the Cold War could have spelled annihilation for the United States. Instead of gearing up for war, the United States was now in a constant state of readiness.
During Eisenhower’s presidency, one out of every ten individuals working in the United States was employed in the defense industry. The growth in federal spending on defense materiel was partially responsible for the enormous population shift to the “Sunbelt” and west coast states. President Eisenhower was very cognizant of the dangers inherent in an industry that was so closely interwoven with federal policies. He warned the country against “the acquisition of unwarranted influence . . . by the military-industrial complex [“MIC”]. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplace power exists and will persist.” This warning from a conservative Republican president (who as a five star general spent over forty years of service in the military) is quite astonishing and is, in my opinion, the heart of his speech.
Eisenhower’s argument in support of his position is logical and difficult to refute. He points out how insidious the MIC’s influence was on intellectual property and independent research in universities. His comments showed a great deal of insight and prescience. Eisenhower’s fears were that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” and that public policy could become “the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.” Of all the statesmen that have called for disarmament, President Eisenhower stands out. From 1915 to 1953 he served in the United States Army, Five Star General of the Army and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe in World War II. He experienced and influenced the transformation of the American armed forces through two devastating world wars and the threat of nuclear war and had a singular expertise and wealth of experience in all things military. Because of this, I believe his comments are to be taken very seriously. And finally, I have to say, after reading the speech and course materials, I have to join in with millions before me to say, “I like Ike.”
No comments:
Post a Comment