Ike, god bless him, was talking about Cheney.
 

Whew, Eisenhower -- warts and all, the last Republican politician I don't view with scorn. (In fairness, I mostly have to go back to FDR to avoid same on the other side if we're on the executive level.) Yes, I include Saints Kennedy and Ronnie. Ugh.

What the hell has happened to the electorate since?
 

Eisenhower was giving modern voice to the revolutionary period distrust of the potential of large standing armies to empower a new King to abridge the liberties of the citizenry. However, he also realized the necessity of a large standing army as the United States supplanted Great Britain as the preeminent world power. Thus, Eisenhower spoke of a need for vigilance to ensure the standing army was not used to abridge the citizenry's liberty.

Wise counsel.

However, the anti military left during and after the Vietnam war twisted and mischaracterized Eisenhower's advice for vigilance to prevent the military industrial complex from infringing upon the liberty of the citizenry to claim that the old general was an isolationist opposed the use of the military and the arms industry, which is plainly not the case.

Unfortunately, the potential for the actual danger of which Eisenhower warned - conflict between the military and the citizenry - may actually be getting worse.

For most of our history, the military mobilized in time of war and the draft included most of the citizenry. Thus, everyone had a stake in military success.

However, with the development of a large standing volunteer army, we are developing a professional military class consisting of military families that produce multiple generations of service men and women.

Worse still, this new professional military class has narrowed socially to primarily rural and suburban conservatives and a cadre of minorities from the inner cities. This was caused by the cultural schism arising from the Vietnam War and the need for fewer recruits as the size of the military shrunk as a portion of the population. The urban and coastal elites generally do not serve and have become increasingly estranged from the military.

This is an exceedingly dangerous development.

The rise of professional military classes tends to precede the involvement of the military in civilian government when the interests of civilian factions come into conflict with the interests of the military.

For example, what happens when isolationist civilian factions with no personal stake in the military seek to compel a military wartime surrender one time too often and the military turns on the civilian government?

The Germans try to ameliorate this danger by maintaining a draft from all segments of society so all civilian factions have a stake in the success of the military and the military is a part of all the civilian factions. However, Americans dislike compelled service and the military dislikes being saddled with rebellious draftees.

I would like to think that we could make a volunteer military work because all civilian factions would want to volunteer for military service in about the same numbers. However, I have found in discussing this subject that there is a significant portion of the citizenry who do not serve, do not know anyone who serves and have an almost visceral distrust of to outright disgust with the military. The feeling by many military members towards these civilians is mutual.

Before the usual suspects start typing without thinking, I am not discussing whether one side is right and the other wrong. I am more concerned with the divide itself and what that could mean for our Republic.

You see it everywhere in the popular culture.

Shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica and 24 portray the heroic selfless military in conflict with cowardly and selfish civilian bureaucrats and diplomats.

On the other side of the coin, you get innumerable movies showing the civilian anti-hero trying to stave off the predations of cartoon fascist military or business types trying to run the world.

It is nearly impossible to find the WWII style movie where we are all in this together.

Is there any way to heal this divide before it becomes too late? I am not asking for simplistic suggestions for the surrender of the other side of the divide, but rather looking for that which unites us.
 

I wish to disassociate myself in no uncertain terms from Bart DePalma's scummy accusations against our military. The idea that the US military would ever rebel against civilian control because they disagreed with the lawful decisions of our elected political leaders is fundamentally un-American.

We are not some banana republic where the elected government serves for only so long as the military permits it.
 

rather looking for that which unites us.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 9:37 PM


Judging by our last 2 elections, and Bush's dismal approval rating, it's hatred for lunatics like you that currently unites us.
 

I'd like to think Washington's was still the most memorable of farewells, but Ike's will do if not.
 

Bart,

I agree with you here. I think one of the awful, glib moments of the Bush administration was when, after 9/11, Bush suggested Americans "go shopping" instead of calling them to service. We should have sacrificed equally after 9/11. I think it is safe to say that the debate over the Iraq War would have been much more vigorous had a draft been in place. You are right; right now we have a reserve army of the lower classes that fight and die and are not adequately supported for their service. This burden needs to be spread around more evenly.
 

Mark,

The farewell addresses of Washington and Ike were the only ones that meant anything. Ike's is more relevant and memorable today, but Washington's decision to step down after two terms was, by far, the most important act of presidential departure.

It is Ike's use of 'unsought' that is most insightful. When we see bad results as exclusively caused by bad-faith actors, we miss too much.
 

I have heard that in Ike's draft of his farewell speech he had included "congressional" as well as "military" and "industrial" in the problem complex. Does anyone have information on this?

Little Lisa's bro once again revises history, much of which he did not experience. Apparently he relies upon:

"Shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica and 24 portray the heroic selfless military in conflict with cowardly and selfish civilian bureaucrats and diplomats."

for his diatribe. No Buck Rogers? The Jetsons? John Wayne? George W. Bush, Texas Air National Guard?

Well before Ike's 1961 Farewell, C. Wright Mills had addressed this complex in his "The Power Elite" (1956).

As for WWII, how does what Iraq's Hussein did compare to what Germany and Japan did? Like litte Lisa's bro, he was a nit on a gnat's nut.
 

Steve M said...

I wish to disassociate myself in no uncertain terms from Bart DePalma's scummy accusations against our military. The idea that the US military would ever rebel against civilian control because they disagreed with the lawful decisions of our elected political leaders is fundamentally un-American.

I served as an NCO and a commissioned officer in the Army and am extremely proud of our professionalism. However, I am also a student of history and history shows that divisions between discrete military classes and the civilian authority never bodes well for long term civilian rule.

While the military prides itself on being apolitical, there has developed a very unhealthy undercurrent. The media have already reported on far too many disturbing rumblings in the military concerning civilian authority. The military actually had to be ordered not to make disparaging remarks against the CiC during the Clinton Administration. A couple weeks ago, a Military Times poll of service members found that 60% either distrusted or were uncertain about our upcoming President.

The potential of conflict between a standing army and the new civilian Republic was a major concern of our revolutionary founders and the reason so many checks and balances were written into the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, including the ultimate check of an armed citizenry.

Given past history and current events, I am not at all confident we can dismiss the Founders' concerns today.
 

However, I am also a student of history

Bart, you lost me right here.
 

I guess Bart's experience in the military leads him to have a lower opinion of them than I do. I have no concern whatsoever that our military would ever rebel against a duly elected President because they disagreed with his decision to end a war.

In the unimaginable event that such a thing occurred, it is blindingly obvious which side would be in the wrong from the perspective of our constitutional framework. Yet Bart seems oddly reluctant to assign blame and, indeed, appears to hold the civilian leaders equally responsible because it's their fault for hailing from the wrong segment of society, or something. No one who is truly proud of our military would suggest that they might participate in such an outrageous scenario of rebellion.
 

Bart does a lot of projecting. I have no doubt that if our military were populated with a high percentage of Barts, a coup would be a distinct possibility. I'm confident that the lunatic fringe in our military is relatively small.
 

Bart, if the military ever rebels against a president, it is not because they have no respect for the president they are rebelling against, it is because they have no respect for our country.
 

Well before Ike's 1961 Farewell, C. Wright Mills had addressed this complex in his "The Power Elite" (1956).

Thanks, Shag. I think it's odd to hear people talking about the potential struggle between military and civilian elites, when the conversion of different kinds of capital seems easier by the day. (Presidents Petraeus and Clark, anyone?) Odder still to hear it in a thread concerning Eisenhower!
 

Steve M said...

I guess Bart's experience in the military leads him to have a lower opinion of them than I do. I have no concern whatsoever that our military would ever rebel against a duly elected President because they disagreed with his decision to end a war.

In the unimaginable event that such a thing occurred, it is blindingly obvious which side would be in the wrong from the perspective of our constitutional framework.

Unimaginable?

Try to step into the shoes of the military under such a scenario.

The civilian government ordered you to war.

You saluted, went to war and paid the price in blood. You lost friends and saw others maimed.

You have been trained to never surrender and to sacrifice yourself and your troops instead.

You are winning the war, but it will be a long and costly slog.

Now, the civilian government seeks to compel you to surrender and make all of your blood sacrifices in vain.

You have no respect for the civilian government because nearly all of them have never served, have never sacrificed and many of them hold your service and sacrifice in contempt.

Do you swallow your bitterness, salute and surrender as ordered or do you rebel and tell the civilian government "no."

Perhaps you consider the demanded surrender so dangerous to the security of the nation that you question whether the civilian government is competent to lead. Perhaps a temporary military government is necessary to protect the national security?

We like to think that such a thing could not happen in the United States, but I personally would rather not tempt fate.
 

Perhaps you consider the demanded surrender so dangerous to the security of the nation that you question whether the civilian government is competent to lead. Perhaps a temporary military government is necessary to protect the national security?

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:23 PM

That is not your decision to make. Why do you hate America?
 

but I personally would rather not tempt fate.

# posted by Bart DePalma : 12:23 PM

Of course you wouldn't, because you know you would disgrace yourself and your country.
 

Perhaps you consider the demanded surrender so dangerous to the security of the nation that you question whether the civilian government is competent to lead. Perhaps a temporary military government is necessary to protect the national security?


No offense, but you sound like a bit of a madman here. Even moreso if the reader understands what you mean by the term "surrender," which is to say any withdrawal of our troops initiated by a Democratic President.

There are too many proud veterans in my family for me to abide the slur that our military would ever consider destroying the Constitution in order to save it. That may be what you believe, but I think much more highly of our troops than that. They respect and defend the Constitution no matter how much you may think they shouldn't.
 

Oh this is just one more example of this deranged neo-fascist liar trying to pretend that up is down and black is white and the
moon is made of green cheese.

AS IF putting an end to the pointless criminal aggression of the Bush administration is in any sense a surrender of anything.

AS IF the Bush administration hasn't spent the last eight years making a concerted effort to subvert the Constitution and laws of the United States for criminal purposes on the demented theory that the US Constitution incorporates the Nazi Fuhrer Principle.

I got news for you Bart, not all soldiers or citizens of this country are as demented, dishonest, and DISLOYAL as you are.
GET LOST.

That said, let remind everyone once again:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO POINT TO ENGAGING IN ANY SORT OF DISCUSSION OF ANYTHING WITH THIS MALICIOUS IDIOTIC TRAITOR TO HUMAN REASON ITSELF. HE'S A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME AND OXYGEN.
 

"Bart" DeLuded:

Before the usual suspects start typing without thinking, I am not discussing whether one side is right and the other wrong. I am more concerned with the divide itself and what that could mean for our Republic.

You see it everywhere in the popular culture.

Shows like Star Trek, Battlestar Gallactica and 24 portray the heroic selfless military in conflict with cowardly and selfish civilian bureaucrats and diplomats.

Which "Bart" approves of. He's a regular Captain ... umm, I think he's more of a Taggart than a Kirk.

On the other side of the coin, you get innumerable movies showing the civilian anti-hero trying to stave off the predations of cartoon fascist military or business types trying to run the world.

It is nearly impossible to find the WWII style movie where we are all in this together.

Is there any way to heal this divide before it becomes too late? I am not asking for simplistic suggestions for the surrender of the other side of the divide, but rather looking for that which unites us.

Yes, "Bart", there is. Turn off your freakin' telly and get a life....

Cheers,
 

Ol' Mucky:

You are right; right now we have a reserve army of the lower classes that fight and die and are not adequately supported for their service. This burden needs to be spread around more evenly.

Agreed. We should support Operation Yellow Elephant. More on the exploits of this recruiting pool here and here.

Cheers,
 

"Bart" lets a few closely guarded thoughts slip through:

Perhaps you consider the demanded surrender so dangerous to the security of the nation that you question whether the civilian government is competent to lead. Perhaps a temporary military government is necessary to protect the national security?

Ahhh, yes, the Inner RWA shines through....

"Seven Days In May" needed a better ending, I guess....

Cheers,
 

Mr. DePalma,


Eisenhower was giving modern voice to the revolutionary period distrust of the potential of large standing armies to empower a new King to abridge the liberties of the citizenry. However, he also realized the necessity of a large standing army as the United States supplanted Great Britain as the preeminent world power. Thus, Eisenhower spoke of a need for vigilance to ensure the standing army was not used to abridge the citizenry's liberty.

I wondered if I misremembered Ike's speech after reading this. So I followed the handy link, and read the entire thing. How you manage to derive this drivel from what was a very eloquent plea for vigilance in the face of commercial interdependence on the Federal government is beyond me. What he was worried about was not the armed forces seizing control, or a "standing army," but the commercial need for profit driving influence for more wars, causing the actual interests of the US and its war policy to become co-opted by commercial interests, i.e. the "you provide the pictures; I'll provide the war" commercial interest. our liberties are at risk when, say, telecoms, who want government contracts, agree to get paid by the government to spy without warrants on the people, even though it is in violation of the law, and then through their influence, are immunized from their illegal wiretapping, all in the name of national security and war. (totally off the top of my head, crazy hypothetical example). As is typical with most of your analysis, you simply read what you want to hear. Ike's fear was not about loss of civilian control over the military, but military-industrial complex control over American policy. it had nothing to do with tension between the military as a force and the citizenry, but the military as a business and the public good. Your inability (refusal?) to comprehend Ike's astute yet simple point explains succinctly your inability (refusal?) to grasp more esoteric legal issues.

I agree with the other posters who do not have fear of our military as itself, but fear of excessive executive power and congressional spinelessness. But at least the Supremes still have a little sense in their heads!
 

About Eisenhower's famous comment I have read that he did add "Congress" but was talked out of it by his staff as being to derisive.

....you know "look forward not backward".....oh sorry I'm talking about the wrong President elect.

Ike's boys just didn't want to destroy a major funding group.
 

Nerp:

I posted:

Eisenhower was giving modern voice to the revolutionary period distrust of the potential of large standing armies to empower a new King to abridge the liberties of the citizenry. However, he also realized the necessity of a large standing army as the United States supplanted Great Britain as the preeminent world power. Thus, Eisenhower spoke of a need for vigilance to ensure the standing army was not used to abridge the citizenry's liberty.

I based my reading primarily upon the passage of Ike's speech quoted by Professor Dudziak:

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

Note the similarities of Ike's quote to those of our Founders about the dangers of a standing army:

“A standing army is one of the greatest mischief that can possibly happen” James Madison

Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace. James Madison

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"Bonaparte... transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

The Virginia delegation's recommended bill of rights included the following: That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

The threat to liberty to which Ike referred in the above quoted passage of his speech cannot be a fear of pressure to enter foreign wars because such adventurism on its own is not a threat to the liberty and democracy of the citizenry.

Furthermore, the military industrial complex includes both the military and the arms industry. It is the existence of a standing army that necessitates the arms industry. Because the arms industry is a natural consequence of a standing army, the Founders spoke of both when they referred to the dangers of a standing army.
 

This is the first time I have agreed with Bart.

There are actually Army troops that are being deployed in the United States (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/565) for the first time.

I think it is reasonable to be concerned about this.
 

Baghdad, that is an excellent example of taking one sentence of a speech, and then completely distorting the meaning of that sentence by ignoring everything else in the speech. Outstanding!
 

Taking away from what Ike meant, the disgusted replies of Bart's comments are a bit much.

The Declaration of Indepedence and Constitution clearly was in part concerned with fears of the military power overtaking the civil power.

I felt this was one reason, emphasized by some here, congressional (civil) could check the actions of the military, and the commander-in-chief power does not change the matter.

The concern for standing armies was a factor behind the second and third amendments. Glenn Greenwald and others have feared changes would increase the use of the army in the domestic area. This includes use of the military in the drug "war" and so forth.

Steve notes "In the unimaginable event that such a thing occurred, it is blindingly obvious which side would be in the wrong from the perspective of our constitutional framework."

Oh? Well, what was "obvious" in said framework and actually done (and supported by many nice people, including re-electing the President, and/or making it close enough to steal, if you like) in the last eight years is not quite the same thing.

It was "obvious" that the Red Scare was unAmerican, but how did that turn out? Interning Japanese citizens. etc. Allowing the domestic police to run roughshod on liberty is also supported. Many deem it "patriotic," and vote for certain people with similar views.

The use of the army to do so in times of trouble happened in other lands that seemed innocent and true. Argentina comes to mind. More immediately, 1930s Germany does as well.

Our "military industrial" complex leads to a need to use its fruits. This does not deny the patriotism of our troops. Their role is not policy after all.

I wouldn't be so full of ourselves. I'd add the concern that there is a "select" military is true enough as well. In fact, it is used by some to justify use of force overseas, since they "volunteered" after all. National service has support across the ideological spectrum for a reason.

Finally, the overextension of the military to roles better left to civil control is also an important matter of policy. See the talk of a greater role of the State Dept., which the current Secretary of Defense support.
 

Uh, nerpzillicus is plainly right, although he's punching below his weight class. Bart's argument basically amounts to "Eisenhower said X is dangerous, and the Founders said Y is dangerous, so therefore X is Y."
 

So it's X is not Y?

Bart: "was giving modern voice to the revolutionary period distrust of the potential of large standing armies to empower a new King to abridge the liberties of the citizenry."

Ike: "Our arms must be mighty ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ...
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes."

This mention of the need for power and its dangers is far from new. In fact, history belied Ike's comment that the nation did not have an armnament industry before the 'latest' conflicts.

Similarly, the Founders would recognize that "how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment" was an important matter. Many were more isolationist than that implies, but many also were quite internationalist, as shown by support of revolutions in other lands.

In fact, "hostile ideology--
global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method" is also something a Founder might say, Jefferson fearing such "power" of royalists throughout Europe etc.

But, beyond that, criticism was made -- however inapt it is as a question of what Ike meant (true enough in various ways, but not as much as implied) -- on what Bart said. That too was overblown.
 

Eisenhower was fairly low key, extra conservative, a classically honored general made a president. I see the speech as a surprise glimpse of his independence at a moment when he had little to forfeit, kind of a coda to what Truman was about in the Youngstown Sheet and Tube incident. Some of the seeds of the unitary executive are visible in Eisenhower's conduct of the presidency during the communist scare years. The US was in the process of building tract homes and commoditizing food, constructing a transcontinental web of roadways, all in the repressed atmosphere of the 50s. It seemed that from the executive office he realized how materiel was channelled to the armies of the world, as if from the military participatory experience he had missed how sources of arms hyped processes of politics. Of course, it was that aloofness which stirred people to vote for him twice. But he sure knew how to close at least one door behind him. Some of the others which congress kept open for good business' sake remain difficult parts of modern bureaucracies.
 

"Bart" DePusMePullYou:

It is the existence of a standing army that necessitates the arms industry.

Typo there. Let me fix Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe Eisenhower's quote you paraphrased there:

"It is the existence of the arms industry that necessitates a standing army."

That's what he said.

No charge.

Cheers,
 

From 1945 on to today, the military industrial (and I'll add congressional) complex relates to our economy significantly but not necessarily wisely. Consider the money flow, jobs created, etc (I leave this to the economists to extend and detail). What would happen to our economy if the complex were significantly lessened? Is the concern of the complex safety or capitialism, or do these go hand in hand? Enough has been written about the problems of empires, although such writings are ignored by actual and potential "king of the hill" nation states. It's capitalism working in global competition. The complex supports our competitiveness globally. Think of George W's October 2002 National Security Strategy: We're #1 militarily, #1 economically and #1 politically and we'll do whatever is necessary to maintain these positions. Creative destructionism next? The complex is too complex to undo with the leadership we have had and have as described in Mills' "The Power Elite." The PR works. (I learned some years ago of a website of the PR Hall of Fame.) Who is there to effectively challenge the complex? PR (or spin) of the Elite will tell us that would make us insecure militarily in a rough world, that it would cost a lot of jobs as complex industries might collapse, that our global political might would falter. No, we have to stay king of the hill and fight off the competition, whatever it takes. Am I too cynical at age 78?