- In his last speech, he warned the people about letting the military industrial complex take over the country and its interests. - He saw the business of war as a threat to freedom.
________________________________________________________
As NPR's Tom Bowman tells Morning Edition co-host Renee Montagne, Eisenhower used the speech to warn about "the immense military establishment" that had joined with "a large arms industry."
_________________________________________________________________
For Eisenhower, the danger posed by this new reality was not only the lobbying influence and economic might that arms companies would wield going forward. It was a “total . . . even spiritual” threat to the character of American society. Eisenhower’s private diary, as well as his letters to his friends during his political career, show his persistent concern about the unending militarization of American foreign policy. He viewed military spending as “sterile” and worried it would lead to a society that mistakenly valued safety and arms at the expense of schools, infrastructure, and social safety nets.
______________________________________________________________________________________
I disagree.
See, this is why people are upset. When presented with evidence contrary to your opinion, you seem to want to reinforce the opinion instead of viewing the evidence to see if perhaps there is something to learn. In his final address, he said no such thing. In fact, if you go back to one of my previous posts, I quoted it at length. At the risk of repeating things, consider how these words do not exactly square with your thesis (
https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/s...e-documents/farewell-address/reading-copy.pdf):
"...we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend not merely on our material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.
...THROUGHOUT THE MANY DECADES OF AMERICA"S [sic] 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. and any failure traceable to arrogance...or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us a grievous hurt both at home and abroad...
Progress towards these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. it commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings.
We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method.... to meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint...with liberty at the stake!!!
CRISES there will continue to be. In meeting them... there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.
BUT EACH PROPOSAL must be weighed in the light of broader consideration... Good judgment seeks balance and progress... But threats, new in kind or degree constantly arise...
A VITAL ELEMENT in keeping the peace is our military establishment...
OUR MILITARY ORGANIZATION today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime...
UNTIL THE LATEST of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry.
AMERICAN MAKERS of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions...
THIS CONJUNCTION of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience... We recognize the imperative need for this development.
Yet we must not fail to understand its grave implications... we must guard agains 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. 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...
IT IS THE TASK of statesmenship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society..."
I have no idea how you can read that, or even view that, and not come to the understanding that he is saying we built a strong industry and a strong military (not one leading the other) because of a need (we recognize the imperative need for this development...").
I read those excerpts, in fact I read the whole speech not as a warning that the industry will take over the country's interests, but rather a warning that the tool should not be used inappropriately. It's kind of like the Steve Earl song:
"My very first pistol was a cap and ball Colt
Shoot as fast as lightnin' but it loads a mite slow
Loads a mite slow and soon I found out
It can get you into trouble but it can't get you out"
You can believe, if you like, that the defense industry is leading political leaders. There may, in fact, be evidence that supports that.
But that's not what Eisenhower said, and you dishonor the man by mis-representing him.