Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Eisenhower's Worst Fears Came True. We Invent Enemies to Buy the Bombs
Britain faces no serious threat, yet keeps waging war. While big defence exists, glory-hungry politicians will use it
Why do we still go to war? We seem unable to stop. We find any excuse for this post-imperial fidget and yet we keep getting trapped. Germans do not do it, or Spanish or Swedes. Britain's borders and British people have not been under serious threat for a generation. Yet time and again our leaders crave battle. Why?
Last week we got a glimpse of an answer and it was not nice. The outgoing US Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, berated Europe's "failure of political will" in not maintaining defense spending. He said NATO had declined into a "two-tier alliance" between those willing to wage war and those "who specialize in 'soft' humanitarian, development, peacekeeping and talking tasks". Peace, he implied, is for wimps. Real men buy bombs, and drop them.
This call was echoed by NATO's chief, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who pointed out how unfair it was that US defence investment represented 75% of the NATO defense expenditure, where once it was only half. Having been forced to extend his war on Libya by another three months, Rasmussen wanted to see Europe's governments come up with more money, and no nonsense about recession. Defense to him is measured not in security but in spending.
The call was repeated back home by the navy chief, Sir Mark Stanhope. He had to be "dressed down" by the prime minister, David Cameron, for warning that an extended war in Libya would mean "challenging decisions about priorities". Sailors never talk straight: he meant more ships. The navy has used so many of its £500,000 Tomahawk missiles trying to hit Colonel Gaddafi (and missing) over the past month that it needs money for more. In a clearly co-ordinated lobby, the head of the RAF also demanded "a significant uplift in spending after 2015, if the service is to meet its commitments". It, of course, defines its commitments itself.
Libya has cost Britain £100m so far, and rising. But Iraq and the Afghan war are costing America $3bn a week, and there is scarcely an industry, or a state, in the country that does not see some of this money. These wars show no signs of being ended, let alone won. But to the defense lobby what matters is the money. It sustains combat by constantly promising success and inducing politicians and journalists to see "more enemy dead", "a glimmer of hope" and "a corner about to be turned".
Victory will come, but only if politicians spend more money on "a surge". Soldiers are like firefighters, demanding extra to fight fires. They will fight all right, but if you want victory that is overtime.
On Wednesday the Russian ambassador to NATO warned that Britain and France were "being dragged more and more into the eventuality of a land-based operation in Libya". This is what the defense lobby wants institutionally, even if it may appall the generals. In the 1980s Russia watched the same process in Afghanistan, where it took a dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev, to face down the Red Army and demand withdrawal. The west has no Gorbachev in Afghanistan at the moment. NATO's Rasmussen says he "could not envisage" a land war in Libya, since the UN would take over if Gaddafi were toppled. He must know this is nonsense. But then he said NATO would only enforce a no-fly zone in Libya. He achieved that weeks ago, but is still bombing.
It is not democracy that keeps western nations at war, but armies and the interests now massed behind them. The greatest speech about modern defense was made in 1961 by the US president Eisenhower. He was no leftwinger, but a former general and conservative Republican. Looking back over his time in office, his farewell message to America was a simple warning against the "disastrous rise of misplaced power" of a military-industrial complex with "unwarranted influence on government". A burgeoning defense establishment, backed by large corporate interests, would one day employ so many people as to corrupt the political system. (His original draft even referred to a "military-industrial-congressional complex".) This lobby, said Eisenhower, could become so huge as to "endanger our liberties and democratic processes".
I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's US, with a military grown from 3.5 million people to 5 million. The western nations face less of a threat to their integrity and security than ever in history, yet their defense industries cry for ever more money and ever more things to do. The cold war strategist, George Kennan, wrote prophetically: "Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military-industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented."
The devil makes work for idle hands, especially if they are well-financed. Britain's former special envoy to Kabul, Sherard Cowper-Coles, echoed Kennan last week in claiming that the army's keenness to fight in Helmand was self-interested. "It's use them or lose them, Sherard," he was told by the then chief of the general staff, Sir Richard Dannatt. Cowper-Coles has now gone off to work for an arms manufacturer.
There is no strategic defense justification for the US spending 5.5% of its gross domestic product on defense or Britain 2.5%, or for the NATO "target" of 2%.
These figures merely formalize existing commitments and interests. At the end of the cold war soldiers assiduously invented new conflicts for themselves and their suppliers, variously wars on terror, drugs, piracy, internet espionage and man's general inhumanity to man. None yields victory, but all need equipment. The war on terror fulfilled all Eisenhower's fears, as America sank into a swamp of kidnapping, torture and imprisonment without trial.
The belligerent posture of the US and Britain towards the Muslim world has fostered antagonism and moderate threats in response. The bombing of extremist targets in Pakistan is an invitation for terrorists to attack us, and then a need for defence against such attack. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost of appeasing the complex is astronomical. Eisenhower remarked that "every gun that is made is a theft from those who hunger" – a bomber is two power stations and a hospital not built. Likewise, each Tomahawk Cameron drops on Tripoli destroys not just a Gaddafi bunker (are there any left?), but a hospital ward and a classroom in Britain.
As long as "big defense" exists it will entice glory-hungry politicians to use it. It is a return to the hundred years war, when militaristic barons and knights had a stranglehold on the monarch, and no other purpose in life than to fight. To deliver victory they demanded ever more taxes for weapons, and when they had ever more weapons they promised ever grander victories. This is exactly how Britain's defense ministry ran out of budgetary control under Labour.
There is one piece of good news. NATO has long outlived its purpose, now justifying its existence only by how much it induces its members to spend, and how many wars irrelevant to its purpose it finds to fight. Yet still it does not spend enough for the US Defense Secretary. In his anger, Gates threatened that "future US leaders … may not consider the return on America's investment in NATO worth the cost". Is that a threat or a promise?
96 Comments so far
Show AllWhy do we go to war?
Because there is money to be made.
Hoa binh
by supplying the tools of the trade...
"the exporting from the United States of warlike instruments and military stores is not to be interfered with." Washington 1793
It's supply side Reaganomics, build enough weapons 1st, then create the wars to use the weapons available that will have to be replaced.
Exactly. This is now occurring with the drones we make. We export drones that have even made it to our "enemies" like Hezzbollah. Now we create better more advanced drones, which lower the price of our old ones -which we still make as well, the old ones go to second hand allies, MIC contractors making a pretty penny, and our military then has to buy an upgraded drone to have a "modern" military. This technology even "trickles down" to all sorts of industries, like entertainment industry(Microsoft Kinect tech is used in the prison industry to automate guard activities)
This just goes to show that if we invested as much in green energy, we would have incredible mind bending technology by now. It makes you question whether we live in hell or not,given the fact that the world we've created is so contradictory to human nature.
The USG propaganda constantly refers to the "special relationship" between the USG and the British government. What is this "special relationship"? It is the relationship between the Wall St. banksters and the City of London banksters.It is the RECOLONIZATION of the USA, by making the USA the indispensable element for the Monopoly Capitalist Globalization,MCG, scheme, the One World System, the Beast of the Book of Revelations, the Beast being a system. British banksters have centuries of experience while the USA banksters has only about 98 years, since the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The tentacles of the British banksters exist worldwide.The British have manipulated the USG to provide the cannon fodder for the MCG and the weapons to supply the cannon fodder, USA troops. The British used the manpower of the colonies to police their colony for the British. Now the British are using the same tactic, using the cannon fodder, USA troops to police the world, for the benefit of the London as well as the Wall St. banksters, to police the occupied colonies. This is the RECOLONIZATION of the USA, to provide the cannon fodder and weapons systems, the Pentagon protection racket scheme to protect the worldwide asset of the WEALTHY MONOPOLY CAPITALIST WELFARE KINGS for the benefit of the MCG, whose primary beneficiaries are the London and Wall St. bankers This is the "because there is money to be made".
Bullseye. A guided missile couldn't have hit the target any better. This is the wallstreet/cityoflondon empire; an alien import to both UK and US (expatriot banksters from Venice moved from Holland to England, under old Billy Orange's "skirts" to set up a new Roman Empire. It was established with the defeat (and eventual co-opting/franchising) of the French Empire in the seven year's (french & indian) war. The rest is history of Rome IV (after Rome I, Byzantine/Rome II, Venice/Norman/Rome III). There are those, in both UK and US who've been fighting this iron beast from the beginning. They've lost most of the rounds, but think they got this iron beast cornered & breathing its' last breath. I hope they're right.
Marx and Lenin were right about American capitalism and imperialism too--and you don't see Russia rampaging around the globe invading and bombing sovereign nations.
Lets be factual here: Eisenhower gave that speech After 8 years of the CIA running amuck - central america, iran and on and on. No president let the cia run amuck protecting the profits of the corporations (see: united fruit company and the dulles brothers)than the Eisenhower admin - and by the way many on Eisenhowers Cabinet were some on the largest shareholders the united fruit co had.
Eisenhower lecturing us on the MIC is like a herion addict telling me not to have a glass of wine with dinner.
Thanks for the context, it's too easy to forget sometimes, what with the cognitive dissonance and all.
No, it's not the same. It's like the heroin addict telling you to stay away from heroin. He was telling you about EXACTLY the same thing he knew first hand about. If he were trying to warn us about something he had NO experience with, THEN your analogy would make sense.
Eisenhower had been in the meetings with those people he was warning us about. He had sat across the table from them, and knew what their motivations were. He was telling us about it, about their plans, about what they had in mind. He KNEW who they were. We SHOULD have listened then, and we SHOULD be listening now. Instead, people like you ignore the words of the guy who STILL tells the truth, decades after his death. And at our own peril.
Was the man perfect? Not by any stretch of the imagination. He never claimed to be. To my knowledge, there has never been a perfect human. I hope there never is. But does that relegate EVERYTHING he said or did to the trash heap? Hardly. You might want to take some good where there IS some, rather than just slamming everything with a hammer because the messenger isn't perfect enough. You miss an awful lot of good messages that way, some of which you MIGHT actually benefit from. And it makes you seem less pissy, too.
Thank you, WJM, as I have been repeating (for some, too often), there is a decided agenda being seen on C.D. where a group of commenters attack the accomplishments, ideas, reputation, and background of ANYONE in the limelight. If this type of commentary were seen on occasion, its pattern would not be screaming out for discerning minds to notice. Nor is it just the meanspirited jealousy or "purist" drives of a few posters. It is a CAMPAIGN to discredit voices that represent any issue relevant to, or otherwise important to those who oppose the status quo. I hesitate even to use words like progressive, liberal, left, or radical, as these words have been co-opted by the right wing smear machine which also seems to have its own eager witnesses at work in the C.D. forum. They push the agenda of GM foods, nuclear power, while still seeking to promote doubt about climate change. In addition, they smear every courageous person who's trying to make a difference in the way of advancing human rights, a more balanced economy, an ecologically sustainable future, or a way beyond war!
Thank you for also standing up for Jimmy Carter on another thread. While every politician--and human being--makes mistakes (some substantial), it makes sense to look at what they also contribute to the evolution of humanity, along with the ideals of any given age and time. Instead, they HARP on mistakes, insist on injuring key figures' reputations, and present these toxic indictments as just mere opinions.
There once was a time where this type of slander got one a penalty, if not taken to court. Too bad the Internet gives character assassins the cover their cowardice warrants.
Yes, indeed. Telling the truth is so horrible.
How about you do some reading, about Eisenhower's foreign policy? This was a president whose sec state was Dulles.
Brava and thanks.
Hi Siouxrose,
"There once was a time where this type of slander got one a penalty, if not taken to court. Too bad the Internet gives character assassins the cover their cowardice warrants."
"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is oft' interred with their bones." Shakespeare. This has been going on for a long time, hasn't it.
No it really isn't.
It is like the heroin seller telling you to stay away from heroin after he has made lots of money from selling heroin, and has now decided to retire.
Eisenhower, like so many politicians, conveniently developed a conscience, when he had retired, and was in no position to do anything.
The words of politicians are meaningless, see for example Obama, Barack. All that matters is what they actually do, see for example, Obama, Barack. Eisenhower's administration ran amok all over the world.
JFK did something during his 3 years in office, he denied the Militarists 6 wars in those 3 years. There were telltale signs he wouldn't go to war in Vietnam. JFK referred to Vietnam as Vietnam, not as north and south Vietnam which were conjured up in and only existed in the minds of the Militarists that wanted a war real bad and were afraid JFK would deny them their Vietnam war. JFK had to be disposed of and along with it his legacy, typified by RFK and MLK.
Walter Cronkite did a retrospective on, I believe, the tenth anniversary of JFK's assassination, He replayed a video that had been made in late 1962, or early 1963. Remember when the President would sit in the Rose Garden with a journalist and a cameraman and have a free ranging discussion?
Anyway, the discussion covered De Gaulle, the oil depletion allowance ( he swore to remove it as it was unfair to the American Public and an unfair reward to Big Oil), The CIA which he wanted to dismantle, and finally, Vietnam.
Kennedy said, "President Diem is our friend and we wish him well, but he has to learn to deal with his own problems. Three Americans have already died in Vietnam and that is three too many."
I figure that was worth about three death warrants right there. And so it came to pass.
Bravo and thanks.
Bravo and thanks.
Who's better positioned that a heroin addict to lecture us about heroin addiction? As to alcohol, it's got its own set of dangers that we would be well served if some alcohol warned us about them, also.
OK! OK! So Eisenhower made lots of mistakes, and committed war crimes. Still, in the end he saw what he had sowed and warned us about it. Has any subsequent president done as well? We owe Eisenhower a tremendous debt for his warning. The shame is, we haven't heeded that warning.
Jim Shea
Jim Shea -- Good comment although the criticisms of Eisenhower's foreign policy is perfectly accurate. Eisenhower was no flower child. He arranged the overthrow of both democratic Iran (Mossedegh 1953) and democratic Guatemala in 1954--two of the worst examples of U.S. destruction abroad.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
This is common knowledge to educated readers at Common Dreams but mention this to the vast majority of Americans and they will gaze at you as blankly as if you were recounting dynastic succession of Mayan nobility at Uxmal 1500 hundred years ago.
With his background as a conservative 'anti-communist' and war hero, this makes Eisenhower's warnings about the military-industrial complex even more credible.
A few additional points about Eisenhower:
His views on taxes, government spending, social security, etc. would place him far to the 'left' of anyone in the present day Republican Party. In fact, Eisenhower would stand at the far left edge of the current Democratic Party.
http://blueworksbetter.com/EisenhowerFlamingLiberal
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/social-security.htm
Through his personal experiences as a general and Supreme Allied Commander, Eisnhower came to honestly loath war:
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
Can you imagine this emphatic condemnation of war coming out of the mouth of the fraudulent opportunist currently ensconced in the White House-- or any of the dazzling array of venal imbeciles lining up to depose him?
Eisenhower was opposed to the use of nuclear weapons on Japan and reacted in dismay when he first learned of the proposal. It is interesting to compare the reactions of Eisenhower and Noam Chomsky to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Chomsky was personally shocked and considers it one of the worst legacies of modern history.
http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
Eisenhower attempted diligently to manage the initial phase of the 'space race' behind a civilian facade as he did not want it to be seen as an extension of the military. The Army's Juno missile team, led by Werner von Braun, was slowed because of Eisenhower's reluctance to accede control to the Army.
Eisenhower then created a civilian agency-- NASA -- to manage the U.S. space program:
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/07/dayintech_0729
According to Eisenhower biographer (and hagiographer) Steven Ambrose, Eisenhower rejected secret proposals from the Pentagon--including Curtis LeMay-- to launch preemptive nuclear wars against the Soviet Union.
http://curtis-lemay.tripod.com/
Yes, Eisenhower has a checkered history in the Cold War and U.S. foreign policy. When compared to the moral pygmies currently dominating both U.S. political parties, however, Eisenhower is an impressive figure.
When contrasting someone like Eisenhower with a Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Palin, Pawlenty, etc. we can consider that the U.S. has entered some sort of Weimar Republic phase in our national politics.
It is hardly surprising that the contemporary American right-wing worships a fraudulent corporate whore like Ronald Reagan over a more complex figure like Eisenhower.
Great comments on Eisenhower, Randy. One additional fact: in 1954, with the French on the verge of defeat in Vietnam and about to surrender to the Vietnamese at Dien Bien Phu, the Joint Chiefs (with the support of VP Nixon) were pressing for overt intervention by the US; Eisenhower nixed it. And on the other hand, it was under Ike in 1956 that the "South Vietnamese government" (previously French puppets, then US puppets ) refused to allow the elections agreed to at the end of the French war. In his memoirs, Ike admitted that Ho Chi Minh would have easily won the election. A complex figure indeed.
Bagenal Harvey -- Good addition to the list.
We should not forget Eisenhower's decisive opposition to the conspiratorial invasion of Egypt by the British, French, and Israelis in 1956 in order to seize control of the Suez Canal and topple Nasser. All three nations had to crawl out of Egypt after the U.S. teamed up with the Soviet Union !!! to demand an end to the invasion at the UN.
It was the last time a U.S. President stood up to the Israelis and forced them to back down. After this farce the colonial pretensions of the UK and the French were pretty much kaput.
http://www.economist.com/node/7218678?story_id=7218678
The UK learned that it could only carry out colonial invasions (see Iraq) as a junior partner to the U.S. Empire.
And these days right-wing leaders from Israel get more standing ovations from the U.S. Congress than Jesus would if he foolishly dropped in for a visit.
Netanyahu says, "Jump!"
And Obama answers, "Which way, sir!? And how high?"
Great comments and reminding us about the WEimar Republic which was succeeded by Hitler's NAZI's.
Reaganomics, economic policies created by Reagan, who had an incapacitated mind, Alzheimer's. These policies are still in place and are adopted by the former Democratic Party, which has morphed into the RepubiCraps, DemoRepubs, DemPubs, Their should be a contest to create a name for the One party of militarists that run the USG, which is now ruled by a Military/Judicial[scotus] dictatorship since 2000. Also, Reaganomics created and initiated the huge Federal deficits.
Ike was an FDR general. He knew about the wallstreet/cityoflondon cabal, "american tories", & "economic royalists", that FDR fought against (fascists & nazis were just modern versions of the same old imperialists; Japan was indeed a traditional empire during the war). He was swamped by the "sea-change" in the intel community, after FDR's death, and the wallstreet take-over. He was probably walking a thin line, so as not to give over to a fascistic coup, and not clamping down on it like a dictator would (thus destroying that, to which he dedicated his life defending). He was genuinely concerned for the deep fatigue of the people, through great depression and world war. He was in a defensive holding pattern. JFK attempted to move on this enemy within (on their power source), and they killed him for it. Both IKE AND MacArthur counseled JFK against a land war on the asian mainland (vietnam), and JFK agreed.
The "dirty secret" was the bankster elite were responsible for WWI/Russian Revolution/Great Depression/fascist-nazi movements/WWII, and got away with it (that's what happens when privatized money power is allowed to exist; it runs amok, with malice-afore-thought). Actually, this was their plan: to build a global empire, and EVERY nation-state stood in its' way, and must be reduced to failure, so the people would no longer support them or any democratic republics, anymore.
Jim: Your post is more fair-minded than most, however, once again... I take umbrage with this "we" thing. I wonder how many Americans support war? Since when are the elites reflecting the will of the populace in actual policy decisions? And if there's any problem attaining the illusion of the public's consent, they just turn on the media machine to pump out the bull-shit through one compromised general after another, touting the alleged patriotic nonsense, added to all the right wing macho pretenders using reliable buzz-words to convince the average GUY that he's less of a man if he doesn't get behind the latest show of martial muscle.
Very few people would support war if they understood the nature of the lies used to animate it, or set up a plausible trigger to get the next one ignited.
Indeed we owe Ike a debt, but please refrain from the nonsense that WE didn't learn. Many of us learned, but try standing in front of a tank and see how far it'll get you.
I have a picture of a certain Chinese man doing that very thing on my wall. I keep it there to remind me of several things: that one man can indeed stop a tank, or a series of them. That those who choose to have courage can inspire the most amazing things and can show us all how truly remarkable the human spirit is.
And how it's completely foolish to do so, unless you don't care if you are never seen again.
I look at it every day and it constantly inspires me. I respect that man with all my being. I hope that some day his relatives will find out what happened to him. May his spirit infect every human on the planet.
Well spoken.
"but try standing in front of a tank and see how far it'll get you."
This brought a memory which you may find amusing.
Shortly before I left the service (back in '58), I was stationed on an island off the Pacific Coast. The army put on a large war game, landing tank columns, infantry, and a company of Rangers who were the "enemy," I had locked horns with our Master-at-Arms and wound up doing some "extra duty" which, in this case was to plant the bare area around the station with iceplant.
I had watched a war movie on TV shortly before, where some grunt stuck a rock in the tank tread, then picked off the crewmen as they tried to exit the tank to clear the rock. I was nearly done with my job when this tank column came rolling toward my iceplant.
I stepped out in front of the lead tank with my hoe. The tank commander popped up in the turret hatch and ordered me to move. I told them to go around, I had just finished planting.
After several orders to move, he said to get out of the way or they would roll right over me. I picked up a large rock and said, "If you move one foot further, I'm going to jam this rock in your tread and anybody that gets out to remove it will get brained with my hoe!"
Finally, the commander gave an order and the column turned and skirted my plantings.
Everybody at the station that saw it gave me great applause.
Off duty, I went out to watch the war games. I was on a hill overlooking the station. Here came the tanks, right to my planting area, which they churned to mulch, then went on their way.
Sorry to take up CD space with an anecdote, but I haven't thought about that since watching that young man in Tiananmen Square.
Good story. Enjoyed it. - David winning over Goliath, Goliath being petty and vindictive in return.
Politicians always shed crocodile tears when they are no longer in position to do anything.
Bravo and thanks.
The wars are OIL related. Either control of oil deposits, control for pipelines or just simply increasing gas prices through war on oil producing countries.
The movie "Blood and Oil" outlines the compelling evidence.
Yes, all our wars are oil related and they all run on oil. We never hear anything in our wonderful press about who actually uses the most oil, gasoline, diesel etc do we? It is our military and its fuel guzzling equipment. No one tells them to use less of it, do they? It is time to realize that when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When we have no more true statesmen/women all we have left is the military and they want their wars. Wake up and speak out against the military. Stop with the stupid meme that "we must support the troops". It's time we support the civilians!
The military pays $400 per gallon for the fuel it uses in AfPak and Iraq. The MSM will n ot report this as it would cut into the profits of some of their advertisers.
Naval and Marine fighters from Whidbey Island airbase continually overfly our island and our home. Day and night, they fly so low they rattle the furniture. How much an hour do they spend doing that? Approximately one Hell of a lot!
I have voted for NADER for more than 30 years, but war is not only about oil. Remember Panama, Grenada,... If it wasn't oil it would be broccoli. As Col David Hackworth said: "In war some people die and some people get rich."
The U$A economy is dependent on war. It is all about Capitalism. There will be no Peace on Earth until Wall Street is turned into a colony for the homeless, and the Hedge Fund Managers become organic farmers.
True. It's not even about oil, or any commodity. We could have told them "name your price", and I'm certain that price would be FAR cheaper than fighting a war for supposedly capturing it, guarding it, escorting it, etc....
These wars are about entrenching the (unlawful) ruling elite, of a global empire, and bleeding the main power of blood & treasure & will/vision, to PREVENT that power from rising up and striking down this unlawful global empire (the U.S./mainstreet/We The People). We are too big to destroy overtly, from without. The clever approach is to deceive/corrupt from within, and make it exhaust itself fighting pointlesss wars, sewing seeds of enmity & future wars. I dare say many vets see this scam now (hence; private "for profit" merc armies & robot/drones, to sidestep angry back-lash).
Ho-Hum
Gee, this is news?
War profiteering is the largest U.S. industry.
Andrew J. Bacevich wrote "The Tyranny of Defense Inc." for 'The Atlantic' in the Jan/Feb, 2011 issue:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/8342/
=======
Eisenhower's 1961 speech is highlighted, but perspective is provided by relating Eisenhower's previous speech at the beginning of his presidency.
As well, Professor Bacevich was formerly a colonel in the US Forces.
This article is a 'keeper', and well worth the read.
Manysummits
===
The USA doesn't want to win any of it's wars. Rather, it wants it degrade the nations it attacks to a neolithic level of development, and then the USA maintains occupation forces sufficient in strength only to maintain a constant insurgency/counterinsurgency war, which ravages the occupied nation like gangrene, yet never fully kills it. The strategy seems to be that by thus crippling these smaller nations, the USA is asserting its Imperial Dominance. Also, the insurgency/counterinsurgency meets the objective of Orwellian Permanent War, which the Ruling Class in the USA clearly wants.
FLAP: Excellent post. I think an unstated aspect is that a lot of military "careerists" are really just large BOYS who have never grown up and really like playing with explosive toys and imagining all sorts of king of the mountain scenarios. This, along with psychopathic tendencies, is an aspect few speak about...but it seems evident to me. The way Gates can STILL plead for more money for weapons, as nature breaks down leading to so much misery in so many places. And the way Boykin said "my God/daddy is bigger than your God/daddy," and which imbecile was it that actually told his recruits (or was it new troops?) that KILLING was fun? Then there's Erik Prince with his private armies UTTERLY convinced that he is killing "the enemy" for Jesus.
If I wrote this stuff into a play, I'd be told it's far too comdemning, stereotypic, and thus contrived. So here again, reality trumps fiction.
Sioxrose, I too applaud flapdoodle64's comment, and yours.
It's another sad commentary about the MSM that nowhere, to my knowledge, did outrage get expressed about Gates' comments. Simon Jenkins got that exactly right, in my opinion.
*£3 million a day it’s reckoned to be costing us to engage in Britain’s favourite pastime; waging war on the planet.*
http://tinyurl.com/6jmp93a
Unpeople, Dirty Wars and a Web of Deceit – Britain’s Foreign Policies
http://tinyurl.com/3fhrmse
When are the posters on this site going to realize that NO ONE is perfect? NO ONE is EVER going to live up to what you people expect from a politician or leader of ANY kind. GROW UP.
Was Eisenhower perfect? OF COURSE NOT. But was he RIGHT in his speech about the MIC? Damn straight he was. And WHO would you believe about it, other than a guy who was in the middle of it? You didn't believe Hillary Clinton about there being a vast right wing conspiracy against the American people, but it's pretty damned clear that she was telling you the truth. It TAKES someone who has been in those meetings, talked with those psychopaths, dealt with their bullshit to KNOW what they are talking about. They are EXACTLY who you SHOULD listen to.
Was Ike a saint? Not by ANY stretch of the imagination. But the man told us the truth, and we SHOULD have listened to him. But you people won't even listen to the truth coming from a guy who knew inside and out what he was talking about because he's not pure enough for you. You aren't looking for a Christ here, you're looking for the truth. You're not looking for someone to follow like a little puppy, someone to tell you how to do everything, make every decision, or live your life like a decent adult. That is YOUR job, and it's called FREEDOM. Eisenhower was not telling you any of that, and for you to think that he should be looked to for everything is a fool's errand. He didn't ask you to do that, and no one else is, either.
Stop ignoring and discounting everything because the person who said it wasn't a saint. Recognize that EVERYONE is a sinner, and that no one will EVER live up to the standards you have set. Look at the information, and decide based on that. What Eisenhower said is STILL and MORE THAN EVER true. What he did before that speech or after or if he was getting a blowjob under the desk on live tv at the time don't change the truth of what he said.
Jeesh.
Ike had flaws. But he was a straight when it came to this. Just like FDR had major flaws when it came to dealing with citizens of Japanese descent. But he was straight when it came to calling out Wall St.. For a rich old white man he had our backs. Thing is today we have no one, no matter how flawed that speaks out in the interests of our societies. They are all in the pocket of big money.
Except maybe Bernie Sanders. He tries to be heard. Hey Bernie I hear you! Keep on keeping on. You are my "hero"!
WJM: Your Hillary example is not the best choice since she obviously determined that if she and Billy-boy couldn't win against 'em, they'd join 'em. And remember how they didn't have the money to buy the home in Harrison, New York... but now are worth MANY millions? And frankly, I have to question the morality of their daughter in marrying a hedge fund fellow. There are few occupations on earth less deserving of the funds amassed than that one... hey, these people brag about the millions they make while raising the price of rice the half-penny that's enough to leave more impoverished families hungry, or nearer to the cusp of death. Sounds like a hard day's work, no?