Eisenhower’s Nightmare

As Europe stumbles through its crisis unable to lead and unwilling to be led, we should not snicker at its constant postponement of critical decisions. We in America are deft at postponement too. At this very moment we have a committee sitting behind closed doors trying to come up with a list of budget cuts to reduce the federal deficit. It’s target is to reduce that deficit by $1.2 trillion – either from cost cutting or revenue enhancement. If it fails, as I wager it will absenting a bolt of lightening striking from somewhere, a round of automatic cuts kicks in. Those automatic cuts include – gasp – reductions in American offense spending. Perhaps I should call it offensive spending to draw attention to the obscenity of its total.

Predictably the right wing in our political structure ridicules anyone who calls for cuts in our military budget. Apparently anything as trivial as one less paper clip for the Pentagon poses an immediate and radical threat to our national security. This is, of course utter nonsense. Unfortunately America has become so enthralled with its military – just watch television long enough and you will end up being bombarded with endless homages to the heroic contribution that our troops make to our good fortune – and indulgent in pseudo-patriotic flag waving, that we can no longer discuss the military budget with either honesty or clarity. Defense is important. But it should be part of a balanced policy that includes suitable attention to what is being defended. It is, in my opinion, plainly silly to end up defending a rotten and decaying infrastructure, health care system, schools, and other aspects of civilian life. After all the proper functioning of those civilian aspects of our economy are what provides the excess wealth we can pour down the military drain.

If we neglect our domestic economy, eventually our military will be weakened: we won’t be able to afford it any longer.

Given this preamble I want to note a couple of things.

First two quotes:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. [‰Û?] Is there no other way the world may live?

‰ÛÒDwight David Eisenhower, ‰ÛÏThe Chance for Peace,‰Û? speech given to the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Apr. 16, 1953.

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…

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence ‰ÛÓ economic, political, even spiritual ‰ÛÓ 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. 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.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Dwight David Eisenhower, “Farewell Address to the Nation”, January 17, 1961

Eisenhower was no fool when it came to understanding the role of the military and its potential impact on society.

His fears have been realized. America remains a highly militarized society and has built a significant dependency on the very complex that Eisenhower warned against.

Next, fast forward to this week:

Marion Blakely, the CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, gave testimony to the budget cutting committee. She presented the findings of a report commissioned by her asociation. The news was grim. Cutting defense spending along the lines set down in the automatic cuts that would kick in were the committee to fail to come up with its own, would – and I quote: “devastate the economy and the defense industrial base and undermine the national security of our country”.

A better articulation of Eisenhower’s fear could not be written.

The defense industry is threatening us with the consequences of our dependency on it. Our budget has been taken hostage. The sentiment is simple: cut defense and lose a million jobs.

In an economy mired in a jobless slump, where every job created is treated as a minor triumph, the defense industry has us by the unmentionables. Any politician seeking re-election will have to swallow hard before cutting defense and thus jobs. Not to mention the inevitable tirades about slashing at our security.

Apparently our military is so inept that it cannot defend us adequately without outspending everyone else – added together – more that two to one. It is so inefficient that is must absorb about a quarter of our budget to protect the other three quarters. Obviously our military has a major management problem. Which means we, the citizenry Eisenhower refers to, have a much larger and more urgent problem.

It boils down to the perennial question: do we run the military; or does it run us?

We know what the Aerospace Industry Association thinks.

I beg to differ.

A great defense starts with a robust domestic economy capable of producing enough wealth to set aside for defense. Right now our economy is nowhere near being robust enough to support the bloated and inefficient military we have.

Something has to give.

I hope it’s not the schools, hospitals, roads, and bridges our children will need to rely upon.

There’s no point in defending a rotten apple.

And, yes, the tradeoff between security and liberty is a crucial one. Eisenhower drew attention to it. We lost our balance because of 9/11. We became security heavy and liberty light. The point of security is to protect liberty, not to forfeit it.

I am afraid we made the wrong choice. And that has political, not just economic, consequences.

Bad consequences.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email