January 17, 1961

[AVG-JOE]

The expression 'Military Industrial Complex' was coined in a warning from Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address.

Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex, is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the military industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.

Two questions up for debate...

1) Did it happen? Did industry* forge a noteworthy relationship with government at the expense of the populace?

2) If it did happen, does it matter?


*Military industry in particular, but when Americans see money changing hands, they learn quickly.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Obviously from my qualifier on industry, I'm arguing that we are in a detrimental quagmire of complex industry and other special interest groups stuck in a self perpetuating industry of lobbying government for special treatment and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, spending contracts.


Monkeys have yet to figure out a way to spend more government money than waging war.

WYGD? ​

Proof that 'Military' is the industry that leads the way in American pork?

America spends 39% of the total military spending worldwide. China, then Russia are next.
America spends what China spends times 4.
America spends what Russia spends times 6.
America spends what Russia and China spend times 2.66.​

By next January, America will borrow $682 Billion in military debt, just to feed the beast for 2013.

List of Countries by Military Spending




I think Eisenhower was right. An Industrial Complex led by military spending took hold and became the US spending problem.


Our military budget should be cut by $432 billion to $250 billion. This would still be what China spends times 1.5. Combine that with a serious look at the out of control spending in the well lobbied Medical Industrial Complex and... Federal Spending problem solved.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You know that you have a 'Whatever Industrial Complex' problem when the industry that grew to serve a tax forms preparation need is worth billion$, most of the millionaires working in DC work for the government, and some of the richest people in our nations capital are professional lobbyists.

BUSINESS BRIEFS: H&R Block profit rises in 4th quarter | Business | The Free Lance-Star | June 13th, 2013

 

[Pogo]

The expression 'Military Industrial Complex' was coined in a warning from Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address.

Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex, is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the military industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.

Two questions up for debate...

1) Did it happen? Did industry* forge a noteworthy relationship with government at the expense of the populace?

2) If it did happen, does it matter?


*Military industry in particular, but when Americans see money changing hands, they learn quickly.

Absolutely, on both counts.

I knew what this thread was about from the title alone; Ike warned us and we didn't heed him. Originally he was going to call it the "military-industrial-congressional complex". A courageous message.

He noted, "God help this country when someone sits at this desk who doesn't know as much about the military as I do". And since then, no one has.

 

[kiwiman127]

Ike understood the Industrial Military Complex like no other. He nailed it.
Today his own party is a very willing accomplice in the feeding of the Industrial Military Complex and the Dems aren't too far behind.
If the Industrial Military Complex had not become reality, what would our county's National Debt look like? Would we even have a National Debt? How many people died because of this predicted development? How many wars would not have been fought? What would the world look like if all of this had not happened?

 

[Pogo]

Much more in this film:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TO7-GBRx1xM]Why We Fight (A Film By Eugene Jarecki) (480p) (cc) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jwoodie]

I was never that impressed by Ike's warning AS HE WAS STEPPING OUT THE DOOR. If it was such a problem, why didn't he stop it (or at least talk about it while he was President)? Government procurement will always be an economically inefficient process which worsens in relation to distance from voters. The complexity of modern military technology is the main driver of these increasing costs.

 

[martybegan]

I was never that impressed by Ike's warning AS HE WAS STEPPING OUT THE DOOR. If it was such a problem, why didn't he stop it (or at least talk about it while he was President)? Government procurement will always be an economically inefficient process which worsens in relation to distance from voters. The complexity of modern military technology is the main driver of these increasing costs.

The unabridged statement:

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 — 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.

Ike was never against a standing army, or a standing defense industry. He realized modern warfare required both. What he was concerned about was undue influence of said enterprise, not the existance of it.

 

[Pogo]

I was never that impressed by Ike's warning AS HE WAS STEPPING OUT THE DOOR. If it was such a problem, why didn't he stop it (or at least talk about it while he was President)? Government procurement will always be an economically inefficient process which worsens in relation to distance from voters. The complexity of modern military technology is the main driver of these increasing costs.

The unabridged statement:

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 — 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.

Ike was never against a standing army, or a standing defense industry. He realized modern warfare required both. What he was concerned about was undue influence of said enterprise, not the existance of it.

Agreed. As the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Ike had seen fascism up close, and saw the same elements bubbling up in his own country, which is what this passage is about.

To the previous poster, I semi-agree: it was courageous to bring this up, though it would have been more courageous to have done more about it while in office. But since then no POTUS has had the cojones to even talk about it, let alone actually do something.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I was never that impressed by Ike's warning AS HE WAS STEPPING OUT THE DOOR. If it was such a problem, why didn't he stop it (or at least talk about it while he was President)? Government procurement will always be an economically inefficient process which worsens in relation to distance from voters. The complexity of modern military technology is the main driver of these increasing costs.

So... are you saying that the warning was pointless and it didn't happen, or that it matters not, even if it did happen?

 

[jwoodie]

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

1. We should guard against the acquisition of ALL unwarranted influence in government.

2. The "military-industrial complex" is a nebulous term which is most often used to invoke emotional support for unrelated causes.

3. Wasteful expenditures in the Defense budget is driven more by local pork barrel interests than anything else.

 

[AVG-JOE]

You're right... that's what led to my qualifier in the opening posts. The lobby / campaign ca$h / spending problem is imbedded in far more than just the defense budget. The defense budget leads the way, though.

And it's not just 'wasteful' expenditures that need to be cut. We, The People, have a spending problem and step one in fixing it is to slash the military / security budget.

 

[PaulS1950]

OK, you see the problem... how do you propose to correct it?

The only way I can see is to do away with the congress and allow people to vote directly instead of through elected officials who become corrupted by the lobbyists.
It would be more difficult to bribe a nation of people than a handful of representatives.

 

[Pogo]

OK, you see the problem... how do you propose to correct it?

The only way I can see is to do away with the congress and allow people to vote directly instead of through elected officials who become corrupted by the lobbyists.
It would be more difficult to bribe a nation of people than a handful of representatives.

I've long proposed that Congresscritters should be forced to live in a chaperoned dorm, where in lieu of salary they'd get free room, board and meals -- and they'd be strictly isolated from meeting with anyone who wasn't a constituent or another Congresscritter. And any meetings that did take place would be filmed and recorded. Put all this eavesdropping technology to productive use.

Let 'em get a taste for what public service really means. And let's see how many of them make a career out of it then.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The expression 'Military Industrial Complex' was coined in a warning from Dwight Eisenhower in his farewell address.

Military–industrial complex, or military–industrial–congressional complex, is a concept commonly used to refer to policy and monetary relationships between legislators, national armed forces, and the military industrial base that supports them. These relationships include political contributions, political approval for military spending, lobbying to support bureaucracies, and oversight of the industry. It is a type of iron triangle. The term is most often used in reference to the system behind the military of the United States, where it gained popularity after its use in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower on January 17, 1961, though the term is applicable to any country with a similarly developed infrastructure.

Two questions up for debate...

1) Did it happen? Did industry* forge a noteworthy relationship with government at the expense of the populace?

2) If it did happen, does it matter?


*Military industry in particular, but when Americans see money changing hands, they learn quickly.

Actually the MIC was in existence well before Eisenhower’s admonishment.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

OK, you see the problem... how do you propose to correct it?

The only way I can see is to do away with the congress and allow people to vote directly instead of through elected officials who become corrupted by the lobbyists.
It would be more difficult to bribe a nation of people than a handful of representatives.

No, the problem is not Congress or lobbyists, but the American people.

As long as the American people allow themselves to be frightened by ‘communists’ in the past or ‘terrorist’ today, the MIC will forever be in control, hiding behind the façade of ‘national security.’

As an aside, doing away with the Republic – and with it the rule of law – would be madness.

 

[PaulS1950]

No, the problem is not Congress or lobbyists, but the American people.

As long as the American people allow themselves to be frightened by ‘communists’ in the past or ‘terrorist’ today, the MIC will forever be in control, hiding behind the façade of ‘national security.’

As an aside, doing away with the Republic – and with it the rule of law – would be madness.

I never said get rid of the republic - I said get rid of the representatives that are taking the bribes instead of voting for their constituents. The rule of law would still exist - the only difference would be that the people would directly make the laws instead of bribed officials.
The only "madness" would be the politicians trying to find real jobs that they are qualified to perform.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Is the thirty-five year long war on drugs an example of the Military Industrial Complex gone awry?

Is the US incarceration rate being the highest in the world just a symptom of the MIC, or is it part of the wider corporate problem of creating sources of tax money to mine?

How much has the war on drugs cost?

 

[FA_Q2]

OK, you see the problem... how do you propose to correct it?

The only way I can see is to do away with the congress and allow people to vote directly instead of through elected officials who become corrupted by the lobbyists.
It would be more difficult to bribe a nation of people than a handful of representatives.

Really? Apparently you have not been paying attention to our election process. It is pretty easy to control the public to be honest. Even worse, do you really want the average American that has no idea what a politician stands for, who is actually running or even what the roles of the branches of government are voting for things as complex as international trade policies and monetary policy. HELL NO. That is a terrible idea. Direct democracies are not a good form of governance.

 

[FA_Q2]

OK, you see the problem... how do you propose to correct it?

The only way I can see is to do away with the congress and allow people to vote directly instead of through elected officials who become corrupted by the lobbyists.
It would be more difficult to bribe a nation of people than a handful of representatives.

I've long proposed that Congresscritters should be forced to live in a chaperoned dorm, where in lieu of salary they'd get free room, board and meals -- and they'd be strictly isolated from meeting with anyone who wasn't a constituent or another Congresscritter. And any meetings that did take place would be filmed and recorded. Put all this eavesdropping technology to productive use.

Let 'em get a taste for what public service really means. And let's see how many of them make a career out of it then.

No to restricted access. That presents some very big problems but everything they do should defiantly be recorded and publically available. Secrete government is not good government. Politicians are going to be MUCH harder to bribe if we recorded all their interactions.