See other War, War, War Articles
Title: The Military-Industrial Complex, Plus Congress
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Nov 3, 2010
Author: http://original.antiwar.com/moore/2010/1
Post Date: 2010-11-03 19:06:00 by tom007
Keywords: None
Views: 128
Comments: 6
The Military-Industrial Complex, Plus Congress by Thomas Gale Moore, November 03, 2010 Email This | Print This | Share This | Antiwar Forum In his farewell address to the nation, Jan. 17, 1961, President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. At the time, the U.S. defense budget accounted for 47 percent of the world’s arms expenditures; today it is over 50 percent. Eisenhower advised: “This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, and even spiritual – is felt in every city, every statehouse, and 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.” The Constitution of the United States makes the president “the commander in chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States,” implying that he can order the troops to withdraw from a war or battleground. But can he? The power to command the troops is limited by the power of Congress to authorize funds for the military and by the actions of the members of the armed forces. Generals and the officers of the military under them are trained to win battles and wars. Their purpose is to win. If they fail, they will not be promoted, and their military careers will be short. The military is unwilling and probably unable to provide an exit strategy for any significant conflict in which it is engaged. Losing is not an option. The military, of course, likes to have access to the best, most modern equipment. The Air Force wants the fastest fighter planes, even if they are unsuitable for the types of combat in which the U.S. is engaged. In Afghanistan, for example, fast fighter planes are almost useless; slow, low-flying aircraft that can shoot at a building or a group of combatants would be more effective. The Air Force generals resist buying such planes. The Navy wants nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers even though, over the last several decades, they have had virtually no role to play in any American conflict. Defense contractors want to build and sell expensive military equipment. To ensure that they will be funded, they subcontract the manufacturing of the equipment to as many states and congressional districts as possible. Representatives and senators, knowing that their constituents hold jobs producing that equipment, have strong incentives to keep the funds flowing for military hardware. Many, if not most, legislators, will naturally oppose reducing the size or reach of the military. In the 1980s, the reluctance of Congress to allow reductions in military bases – no one wanted to eliminate a base within his/her district or state – led to the establishment of a commission to recommend which bases were to be closed; Congress agreed to accept or reject the commission’s report in total. Today eliminating military programs would be almost as difficult as was closing bases in the ’80s. In addition, patriotism is a very powerful force. We all know the expression “My country, right or wrong.” Consequently, supporting our troops in foreign wars has become mandatory, especially for politicians. Even if we believe the war to be mistaken or just wrong, politicians, at least, must continue to support the military. Although the president may have the authority to direct the military, the “politically correct” stance is to follow their advice. According to Bob Woodward’s Obama’s Wars, CIA Director Leon Panetta asserted, “No Democratic president can go against military advice, especially if he asked for it.” The Woodward book also shows that, in 2009, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates were all strongly recommending additional troops for Afghanistan. As Panetta said, how could the president do anything but order more troops into that war? If President Obama were to order the troops home, would Congress permit the withdrawal? It seems likely that they would try to enact a funding bill prohibiting any money being used to repatriate our troops from Afghanistan. Many observers of U.S. foreign policy believe that our military is overextended around the world and that we would be better off withdrawing from our foreign bases. If the president were to order that all foreign military bases be closed and the troops be returned to U.S. soil, would Congress allow it? If troops were brought back, the size of the military would have to be significantly reduced. Although this would cut government spending and slash the deficit, it would cause consternation in the military. Many officers would have to be retired. Promotions would become difficult to secure. The companies that provide military hardware would find their markets severely curtailed. If Congress were unwilling or more likely unable to prevent the closing of foreign bases, would the military simply salute and obey? I believe they would; but in the past and in other parts of the world, military leaders have refused to follow orders from civilian leaders. The Roman Republic lasted for hundreds of years until, eventually, a general, Julius Caesar, led his forces across the Rubicon, thereby creating the Roman Empire (run, of course, by the military). Unless we rein in our military-industrial complex, ultimately that may be our fate. Read more by Thomas Gale Moore
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: tom007 (#0)
The dems didnt do it when they rode into town nearly two years ago. Even tho it was a Bush pub war. Now the pubs will swagger into Dodge come January and will do nothing about this on going suicidal war. One would think that both parties have the same boss? Good heavens.
The boss is corruption.
"Satan / Cheney in "08" good and heaven have nothing to do with it.
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
At this point the MIC is simply a sideshow. The real action is the Banksters who are pulling all of the important strings. Along with the Psychiatrists, whom the Banksters fund, that is where the nexus lies, and the MIC is simply a diversion from the real master puppeteers.
"One of the least understood strategies of the world revolution now moving rapidly toward its goal is the use of mind control as a major means of obtaining the consent of the people who will be subjects of the New World Order." K.M. Heaton, The National Educator
Ok, it's not a decrease. It's an increase of 3% since that cold war era about half a century ago prior to escalation in Vietnam, etc., etc. Maybe I'm missing something but a 3% increase over 50 years of periodic and prolonged hot wars seems overhyped as worrisome, except that it indicates that our troops have had to sandbag underarmored vehicles, try to defend themselves with guns that jam, and that sort of thing because of war on the cheap agendas and global competitor agendas of profit over quality. We're not even supposed to be importing things like up-armor kits. We're supposed to make what our military needs here. Don't want to supply them properly, bring them all home. Good question. No, Presidents can't just decide on their own to end war. They are subservient to Congress in their role as CiC. Imagine if Congress declared war, like they're supposed to, and a President refused that order. Blame Congress for refusing to end wars. They don't just have the power over funding to do that. They can end them by treaty through the Senate or just say, "War Over." Many members of Congress are heavily invested in the arms industry but shouldn't be allowed to be during their terms. They aren't just concerned about jobs for their constituents, as evidenced by their disastrous NAFTA acts and such. They have a personal profit motive for continuing war and if the arms industry can make them more money by relocating outside of America to reduce labor, overhead, and tax payouts, they're not likely to make many waves about it. Think again. Rumsfeld closed lots of bases jiffy quick, many on our coastlines and waterways. Odd move, considering the next resource wars are projected to be over water. The terrorist theme is a marketing device to promote wars for oil and empire because not many people are willing to go to war for those objectives. Water wars can be marketed with sheer survival as the recruitment motivator. Canada has long been a good and friendly neighbor. And it has lots of water resources that some might covet. Nov 02 10:08 at whatreallyhappened.com: Climate Change Hysteria Falters. Water Is The New Target Water is the latest target. More and more stories about running out of water appear. Most are linked to the false claim by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that droughts will increase in severity with global warming. It’s illogical because higher temperatures mean increased evaporation and more moisture in the air to create precipitation, but that doesn’t stop them. Our coastlines and borders are very long and our interior very big. They should be stationed here to protect America.
------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
The power to command the troops is limited by the power of Congress to authorize funds for the military
#2. To: Cynicom (#1)
One would think that both parties have the same boss?
#3. To: Cynicom (#1)
Good heavens
#4. To: tom007 (#0)
#5. To: tom007 (#0)
#6. To: tom007 (#0)
In his farewell address to the nation, Jan. 17, 1961, President Eisenhower warned of the military-industrial complex. At the time, the U.S. defense budget accounted for 47 percent of the world’s arms expenditures; today it is over 50 percent.
The Constitution of the United States makes the president “the commander in chief of the Army and the Navy of the United States,” implying that he can order the troops to withdraw from a war or battleground. But can he? The power to command the troops is limited by the power of Congress to authorize funds for the military and by the actions of the members of the armed forces.
In the 1980s, the reluctance of Congress to allow reductions in military bases – no one wanted to eliminate a base within his/her district or state – led to the establishment of a commission to recommend which bases were to be closed; Congress agreed to accept or reject the commission’s report in total. Today eliminating military programs would be almost as difficult as was closing bases in the ’80s.
If troops were brought back, the size of the military would have to be significantly reduced.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest