It Is All About the Money – N.Y. Times

In today’s New York Times there is an article entitled "Crux of Afghan Debate: Will More Troops Curb Terror?"   that questions the need to increase troop strength in Afghanistan and questions to some degree further involvement in Pakistan.  Many security experts, according to the article, think that the cost of increasing involvement with American troops on the ground is a tactical mistake and an expense we cannot afford. We can do just as much with non-troop involvement they argue.

In another article that concerns deep cuts in public school programs throughout our nation this year despite bailouts equalling about $100 billion dollars by the federal government entitled "Schools Aided by Stimulus Money Still Facing Cuts" , we can see the folly of all this money being spent for generations on the American war machine.  We are cheating our children, grandchildren and even their children! This is exactly, word for word, what President Eisenhower warned us would happen in 1961 if we continued massive spending for military industrial complex boondoggles (think billions spent on a death ray). 

In 1961, in the closing weeks of his administration, this five star General of The Army and sitting President of the United States, the former supreme allied commander of all forces in Europe in WWII, Eisenhower coined the term "military industrial complex". This low key Kansas farm boy who graduated from West Point and went on to serve under Douglas MacArthur as his chief of staff said the following on national television.  I quote this in part, the actual speech is much longer.

He was a great prophet of things to come.  Here is Eisenhower’s speech , in part.

"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. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations.

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

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow."

Do you see how right this man was?  We have arrived squarely at the danger zone he told us was a very real possibility.  We have more than qualified as the people he did not want us to become.  We have ignored his warning. 

That all came flowing back to me this morning when I read these two stories in the New York Times.

CWO3 Tom Barnes, USCG (Ret.)