When I was twelve I became a Republican and interested in politics in general. Dwight Eisenhower was president and as the grandfather of our country at that time, he inspired me to his vision of the United States. Historically, he will probably not go down in history as one of our best presidents but for me, looking back, he inspired a sense of purpose for me as a young person and through his vision for us as a country. In his last speech to Congress he outlined a vision for our country that in some ways has been abandoned and in some ways, over time, has come to reality. Here are some excerpts from that speech:
“Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.
“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.
“You and I — my fellow citizens — need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation’s great goals.
“To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.”
There are numerous lessons to be learned from this speech but the one I want to focus is the line about the “military industrial complex”. Being an old soldier as he was, he saw the need for having a strong military. He also observed in this speech that the R and D of the military were often used for peaceful purposes, thereby enhancing the lives of all of us. But what he was concerned about was that the military would become so strong and unwieldy that it would be difficult to reign in. We have seen this occur in so many ways. Since WWII in every war that we have fought, except for Viet Nam, we have always left a large contingency of military in those countries. In 2009 our military budget was $515.4B with other military related expenditures ballooning the military budget to about 1T. Through the cold war it may have been important to have these kinds of expenditures and military strategy to fight a large land based war. With the advent of terrorism, it has become apparent that we are fighting another kind of war that requires different strategies. More emphasis is being placed on tactical warfare and technology. Drones controlled in the U.S. are regularly attacking Taliban and Al Qaeda positions in Afghanistan. We are even using drones for surveillance purposes on our Southern border.
With the continuing explosion of our national debt and the strain that it puts on all parts of our economy, much has been said about how the U.S. needs to cut spending. But when it comes to making suggestions on where to cut, the military is the last to be mentioned. The reality is that so many parts of our economy and our regional economies are dependent on military spending. Some cut backs for closing bases and redundancies have occurred but we’ve also seen examples of the decimation of local economies such as Sealy, TX where a military truck contract held by a British company was moved to Wisconsin. Also, NASA with its $108billion Back to the Moon project, primarily based in Houston and Florida was scrapped. In the case of the Sealy BAE contract it was more than likely a political payoff or retribution against Texas, but for Sealy it will create hardships for years. So, government spending for the military dramatically impacts the overall private economy. The same is true for NASA. Thousands of jobs both governmental and private industry is at stake. But we have to ask ourselves, is it scientifically or economically beneficial to maintain this program.
But military spending is one area that our government might make some dramatic cutbacks. Not only because of redundancies but also because of the different ways that we will possibly have to wage war in the future. Suggestions of cutting back are met with deep concern. It’s almost unpatriotic to suggest cutbacks. And it’s not just here in the U.S. What would happen to the South Korean economy if we made a substantial cut back in military spending there? There is much concern about North Korea and its military interests in getting South Korea back, but many have suggested that North Korea, half the size of South Korea and with less than half as many fit persons to serve in the military, could not mount an all out war since it can’t even feed its own people, much less carry out a war. And there are strong indications that China does not want to have to bolster the North Korean economy in case of war.
At the end of WWII there was tremendous built up demand for products and consumer technology that had not been available during the war. Much of U. S. industry was tooled for military production. And there was a great demand for higher education. The nation quickly responded to these demands with the GI bill, the retooling of American industry and more consumer products.
Even though this scenario is not completely analogous there are some similarities with our economy today. One of the main issues after WWII was the transition from a military economy to a consumer and infrastructure economy. With over $500.billion in direct expenditures and about $1Trillion in direct and indirect military costs it would seems important to take a hard look at these expenditures and see where we could cut now, where we could transition into peace time industries and where we need to emphasize our future military expenditure efforts. Even border security could be enhanced by channeling existing troops, hardware, and technology to our borders. But if our experience here in the Houston area is any indication of the hurdles to a change in direction in military spending, it will be a long, hard fight.









SocialVibe