Actually Eisenhower didn't. I discussed that in a previous post also and am really no longer in the mood. But I'll offer the shorthand version.
Let me start by suggesting you read the whole speech and perhaps a critical interpretation or two of it. The quote that has resonated with the left for sixty years was “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex” It has now become a favorite of the new populist isolationist movement. Interesting bedfellows from the perspective of this Reagan Conservative.
Eisenhower, more than anyone, understood the dangers of isolationism, appeasement, and disarmament. He lived it and shouldered the consequences. The quotes of that speech that should be remembered are, "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.” and "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." That is in my view represents a clarion call to action on the world stage, not a warning about some military industrial cabal. Regrettably such a knowledgeable citizenry appears ever more to be a pipedream.
With all do respect I fail to see the horror in Kirby's statement. - "The defense industry obviously wants to make sure that if they're going to increase production, that that production rate is going to stay elevated for a period of time. Because that means hiring more workers, it means retooling and adding capacity in their factories and manufacturing capabilities. So we understand that and that's sort of the central thesis here of the discussions that we're having with them, is to get them to increase production and let them know that we're serious about doing that for some period of time," Kirby said .
Well of course. It is called basic business administration 101. What do you expect a munition or weapon systems manufacturer to do? And I would remind you that I was one. What the industry is doing is providing assessments of what is necessary to bring stockpiles of whatever munition to whatever level DOD and the president believe are necessary to support DOD's mission requirements. They are not going to build any of that without a contract. Rates of production will further drive those estimates. But it is the administration developing those requirements and competing those contracts.
I have stated this a dozen different ways, but if our assumptions about the threat represented by China are correct, then I am certain thwarting Russian territorial ambitions in Europe is in our critical national interests. It directly undermines the obvious Chinese strategic effort to create an abiding conventional threat in Europe and further saddles them with a dependent rather than partner. That will allow us to truly focus on our most significant threat.
We have already accomplished enormous strides in neutering the threat presented by an emerging modern military power representing the Russian state.
If you do not agree with that assessment that is your privilege.
Last edited:
