The U.S. "military-industrial complex"
finally is getting its come-uppance - a restraint advocated
long ago by George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Latest defense contractor brought to heel is General Dynamics
which makes nuclear submarines.
Navy Secretary John Lehman accused the company of "brazen and improper" business conduct. He froze a billion dollars worth of contracts pending reforms in billing charges. He also canceled $22 million of existing contracts and levied a fine of $676,000. The president of General Dynamics resigned.
Even so, Congress criticized Lehman for being too lenient. Tales of $2,000 coffee makers, $700 toilet seats and $400 hammers have made lawmakers touchy.
President Eisenhower's most valuable contribution to the nation he served for 50 years - most of it in the military - may well be the warning tucked away in his farewell address.
He was concerned about the rise of a permanent munitions industry unique in America. He saw the development of a military-industrial complex as essential to peace, but with grave dangers to liberty.
Not since George Washington voiced similar fears has a U.S. president felt compelled to speak so candidly to the citizenry. It is important that we heed the only unsolicited advice Ike ever gave us.
It is ironic, but characteristic of our attitude toward practical men, that Eisenhower's accomplishments are just now being acknowledged.
During his administration Alaska and Hawaii were brought into the union, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration was established, the interstate highway system started, the principle of federal involvement in school desegregation put into practice and the Korean War ended.
History may subordinate all these to his farewell address unless we are vigilant.
Said Eisenhower:
"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.
"Our
military organization today bears little relation
to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime,
or indeed by the fighting men of World War II
and Korea.
"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.
"Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We
annually spend on military security more than the
net income of all United States corporations.
"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 state house, 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 tail, 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."
In his autobiography, "Waging Peace," Eisenhower said he made his warning to the American people in the hope his record of service and obvious objectivity would lend weight to it.
The similarity of this approach to that of Washington in his famous Farewell Address is striking. Roth men were the top generals in great wars. Both went on to become respected presidents. Both were loved for their great moral character.
Said Washington:
"A solicitude for- your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present... to
recommend to your frequent review
some sentiments which appear to me
all important to the permanency of
your felicity as a people.
"These
will be offered to you with the more
freedom as you can only see in them
the disinterested warnings of a parting
friend who can possibly have no personal
motive to bias his counsel.
"While every part of our country feels as immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find greater strength in the united mass... and
exemption from those broils and wars
between themselves which so frequently
afflict neighboring countries not tied
together by the same government.
"Hence,
likewise, they will avoid the necessity
of those overgrown military establishments
which, under any form of government,
are inauspicious to liberty, and which
are to be regarded as particularly
hostile to republican liberty."
President Reagan and Defense Secretary Weinberger are on the right track in bringing our defense industry to task. They have been diligent in finding and exposing fraud and cheating. It is strange that these commendable efforts should be used to thwart the president's policy of a strong national defense. If the administration is correct in the first instance, why not the second?
Let us "frequently review" the warnings given us by America's two greatest generals. Keep the military-industrial complex in check, but keep it strong.
PARTING SHOTS
Premier Nakasone complains that a Congressional resolution accusing Japan of unfair trade practices is "discriminatory." Apparently he believes in reverse kamikaze.
April 2, 1975 earlier version
Ike's Military Warning Recalls George Washington
Editor's Note: Lin Williams is ill this week with influenza and was unable to prepare his usual column. He offers instead a reprinted column of April 1969 which a reader recently suggested as appropriate in view of the current U.S. military situation.
Dwight D. Eisenhower's most valuable contribution to the nation he served for 50 years may well be a little noted warning tucked away in his farewell address delivered just three days before leaving the White House.
He was concerned about the rise of a permanent munitions industry unique in America. He saw the development of a "military-industrial complex" as essential to peace, but with grave dangers to liberty.
Not since George Washington voiced similar fears 173 years ago has a U.S. president felt compelled to speak so candidly to the citizenry. If his counsel and experience is important - and indeed it is - it is urgent that we remember and heed the only unsolicited advice he ever gave us.
It is ironic, but characteristic of our attitude toward practical men, that Eisenhower's accomplishments are being acknowledged widely only after his death.
During his administration two new states, Alaska and Hawaii, were brought into the union; the National Aeronautic and Space Administration was established; the interstate expressway system started; the principle of federal involvement in desegregation of schools put into practice at Little Rock, Ark.; and the Korean war ended.
History may subordinate all these to his farewell address unless we are vigilant.
Said Eisenhower:
"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.
"Our
military organization today bears little relation
to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime,
or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or
Korea.
"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.
"Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We
annually spend on military security more than the
net income of all United States corporations.
"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 state house, 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."
In his autobiography, "Waging Peace," Eisenhower
said he made his warning to the American people
in the hope his record of service and obvious objectivity
of the circumstances would lend weight to it.
The similarity of this approach to that of George Washington in his justly famous Farewell Address is striking. Both men were the top generals in great wars. Both went on to become respected presidents. Both were loved for their great moral character.
"A solicitude for your welfare, which cannot end but with my life, and the apprehension of danger natural to that solicitude, urge me on an occasion like the present. . . to recommend to your frequent review, some sentiments which. . . appear to me all important to the permanency of your felicity as a people," said
Washington.
"These
will be offered to you with the more freedom as
you can only see in them the disinterested warnings
of a parting friend, who can possibly have no personal
motive to bias his counsel."
Washington had many recommendations, all of them
perceptive. In
regard to the military he stated:
"While, then every part of our country feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find greater strength in the united mass ... and
exemption from those broils and wars between themselves
which so frequently afflict neighboring countries
not tied together by the same government.
"Hence,
likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those
overgrown military establishments which, under
any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty,
and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile
to republican liberty."
That America's two greatest generals should speak so frankly of the military certainly should underscore their message.
Let us render all honor due them, and let us remember their great services, but also let us "frequently review" those few words they themselves chose as their legacy.
