Eisenhower and the growing power of the military-industrial complex

[Walter]

President Dwight D. Eisenhower famous warnings about the growing power of the "military-industrial complex, he preaches to us from 50 years ago!

 

[dogtowner]

Clearly he understood the nature of this beast given his various perspectives but not sure he could have guessed how much pols would whore themselves out to it.

Perhaps the fat dumb and happy Ozzie and Harriette era was just too comfortable fir people to care.

 

[Cruella]

No fear, Obama is dismantling our military as fast as possible. Too bad we are in another World War with the Russian and Chinese jackals waiting for their move.

 

[Lagboltz]

No fear, Obama is dismantling our military as fast as possible. Too bad we are in another World War with the Russian and Chinese jackals waiting for their move.

No fear, the US has enough military spending. Your hatred for Obama is a non sequitur. We spend more on defense than the next 8 largest country expenditures combined. Do you propose keeping wasteful programs such as the F22 fighter jet? Redundant bureaucracy?

 

[Cruella]

No fear, the US has enough military spending. Your hatred for Obama is a non sequitur. We spend more on defense than the next 8 largest country expenditures combined. Do you propose keeping wasteful programs such as the F22 fighter jet?

I know next to nothing about the F-22 or other military assets. I guess any inventory can be called a redundancy until you run out of them when needed. I'm also aware that the so called "military complex" employs, has employed a lot of American workers over the years and we probably have benefited a great deal because of them in other areas, like technology.

 

[Lagboltz]

I know next to nothing about the F-22 or other military assets.

Then why do you bitterly criticize Omama on something you know nothing about.

I guess any inventory can be called a redundancy until you run out of them when needed.

A stock piling “redundancy” is not the same problem as a bureaucracy redundancy. The F-22 is not a redundancy problem. Mr. Gates adamantly opposed buying more F-22s, which he says have little relevance to today's conflicts, and would rather upgrade F35s that have more relevance.

I'm also aware that the so called "military complex" employs, has employed a lot of American workers over the years and we probably have benefited a great deal because of them in other areas, like technology.

Wheel-spinning is always a waste. Over $80 billion was spent on the world's most expensive F-22 Raptor. It has never been in combat despite the U.S. Air Force's involvement in simultaneous major combat operations.

 

[Cruella]

Then why do you bitterly criticize Omama on something you know nothing about.

What are you talking about? If your so worried about the F-22, how about telling us what we got for the 800 billion Obama spent with the stimulus package and how many jobs that created.[/QUOTE]

 

[Lagboltz]

What are you talking about? If your so worried about the F-22, how about telling us what we got for the 800 billion Obama spent with the stimulus package and how many jobs that created.[/thread to a I-hate-Obama QUOTE]

Why are you trying to hijack thread concerning Eisenhower's warning into a "I-hate-Obama” denunciation? And now you are trying to hijack it into a stimulus denunciation. Yes, we get it. You hate Obama and can't help yourself from spewing that every chance you get.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I know next to nothing about the F-22 or other military assets. I guess any inventory can be called a redundancy until you run out of them when needed. I'm also aware that the so called "military complex" employs, has employed a lot of American workers over the years and we probably have benefited a great deal because of them in other areas, like technology.

They have already spent over 1 Trillion dollars on the F35, and it still won't fly as planned. However, since none of the military wants the damn thing, Congress, in all of its unholy wisdom, allotted 500 Billion more to the project. Wasn't it the DOD that lost some 8.5 trillion dollars a while back, or could not account for where it went? And yet somehow it is Obama that is decimating the military.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...lYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1lIUzAwNF8x

Here is another quote of Eisenhower that is ignored, yet is so true:

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
Dwight D. Eisenhower

Think about this next time you hear some "conservative" whine about helping the poor.

 

[BigRob]

No fear, the US has enough military spending. Your hatred for Obama is a non sequitur. We spend more on defense than the next 8 largest country expenditures combined. Do you propose keeping wasteful programs such as the F22 fighter jet? Redundant bureaucracy?

I would absolutely have kept the F-22 program - nor was it really redundant. To compare it to the F-35 shows a lack of understanding of the programs.

As for the United States spending more on military than the next 8 combined, that is because we have different missions and goals than they do - and they rely on us to carry the brunt of most international issues that arise. The benefit we get from being the superpower is dramatically worth the effort of maintaining the status.

 

[BigRob]

They have already spent over 1 Trillion dollars on the F35, and it still won't fly as planned. However, since none of the military wants the damn thing, Congress, in all of its unholy wisdom, allotted 500 Billion more to the project. Wasn't it the DOD that lost some 8.5 trillion dollars a while back, or could not account for where it went? And yet somehow it is Obama that is decimating the military.

That 1 trillion dollars is over a 55 year period. They have not "already spent that". And you are entirely right that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the military and military bureaucracy. So, let's root it out and get rid of it.

However, not adequately accounting for 8.5 trillion since 1996 has noting to do with the comment about Obama's military force decisions.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

That 1 trillion dollars is over a 55 year period. They have not "already spent that". And you are entirely right that there is waste, fraud, and abuse in the military and military bureaucracy. So, let's root it out and get rid of it.

Sorry, the F35 is not 55 years old. And they have spent over 1.5 Trillion dollars on it alone:

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/19/4...ter-jet-the-pentagons-1-5-trillion-boondoggle

However, not adequately accounting for 8.5 trillion since 1996 has noting to do with the comment about Obama's military force decisions.

You haven't said if you agree with the comment, or not.

However, one point I am in slight disagreement with is the power the President has over war determinations. Properly read, the President is Commander in Chief only AFTER a declaration of war, and the calling up of the troops. (Article 2, section 2) In the world the Founders declared it was the job of Congress to make such decisions. Then too, like most everything else, the Constitution is irrelevant to either political party unless it actually addresses something they want it to address, and even then they will make something up if needed.

 

[BigRob]

Sorry, the F35 is not 55 years old. And they have spent over 1.5 Trillion dollars on it alone:

The F-35 project has a lifetime estimate cost of roughly $1.5 trillion. That lifetime of the program is over a 50 year period. You are claiming that the lifetime cost of a program has already been spent. It hasn't. You are simply incorrect here.

We can agree the program is going over budget and is years behind schedule at this point. But $1.5 trillion has not been spent.

You haven't said if you agree with the comment, or not.

However, one point I am in slight disagreement with is the power the President has over war determinations. Properly read, the President is Commander in Chief only AFTER a declaration of war, and the calling up of the troops. (Article 2, section 2) In the world the Founders declared it was the job of Congress to make such decisions. Then too, like most everything else, the Constitution is irrelevant to either political party unless it actually addresses something they want it to address, and even then they will make something up if needed.

The Constitution clearly gives the President the power of Commander in Chief - and the President has clear authority to engage in limited actions outside of Congressional authorization. That said, nowhere in the Constitution will you find what a "declaration of war" must look like. I would contend that Congressional authorizations to use force, as passed by Congress, amount to a declaration of war and give the President clear authority to conduct that war.

That said, in terms of budgeting for the military. The military is essentially a bureaucratic organization, same as other governmental agencies. There are clear political fights over budgeting for these agencies and budgeting for the military often is subject to political pressures. The President has a lot of sway in the political fight over the budget of the military, and there are some programs I think the President cut that are detrimental to our national security. There are others that he has improved on. It is all a political tug of war.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

The F-35 project has a lifetime estimate cost of roughly $1.5 trillion. That lifetime of the program is over a 50 year period. You are claiming that the lifetime cost of a program has already been spent. It hasn't. You are simply incorrect here.

We can agree the program is going over budget and is years behind schedule at this point. But $1.5 trillion has not been spent.

OK, so we can now see you do not read articles on a subject when presented.

The Constitution clearly gives the President the power of Commander in Chief - and the President has clear authority to engage in limited actions outside of Congressional authorization.

Now we can see you have never read the Constitution. Article 1, section 8, clauses 11-16 grants Congress, and ONLY Congress, the authority to declare war, and arm the military. NOT the President. Article 2, section 2, clause 1, clearly declares that the President shall be CIC AFTER the military has been military "called into the actual service of the United States". No where in the Constitution does it say that the President has the power to declare war, or to finance a war, or to even call the military into action. Remember now, we are speaking of the Constitution, not the extra-Constitutional powers of the war Powers Act.

That said, nowhere in the Constitution will you find what a "declaration of war" must look like. I would contend that Congressional authorizations to use force, as passed by Congress, amount to a declaration of war and give the President clear authority to conduct that war.

Notice that you are saying "Congressional authorization".

That said, in terms of budgeting for the military. The military is essentially a bureaucratic organization, same as other governmental agencies. There are clear political fights over budgeting for these agencies and budgeting for the military often is subject to political pressures. The President has a lot of sway in the political fight over the budget of the military, and there are some programs I think the President cut that are detrimental to our national security. There are others that he has improved on. It is all a political tug of war.

No, it is just political hype since the programs Obama cut were under the BRAC program of 2005 which he requested a new committee to look into, and the Sequester the GOP authorized which Obama is now seeking to get rid of.

 

[BigRob]

OK, so we can now see you do not read articles on a subject when presented.

Let's take it step by step here. Your article in "the verge" (whatever that is) includes in the headline the $1.5 trillion figure. If you bother to click the Vanity Fair story that they link to and base their entire "story" on you quickly find this comment:

"Over the course of its lifetime, the program will cost approximately $1.5 trillion."

Since that might not be enough apparently to convince the illustrious readers of "the verge" how about this quote from Reuters:

"The U.S. government now projects that the total cost to develop, buy and operate the Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be $1.45 trillion over the next 50-plus years, according to a Pentagon document obtained by Reuters."

Still don't believe the reality staring you in the face? Let's take a look at hard budget numbers. For the sake of simplicity we will look at FY 2006-2015 - as 2006 was the year we saw the first F35 flight. Over this time frame, the United States has spent roughly $6.5 trillion total as part of the defense budget. You contend that $1.5 trillion of that (or 23% of the total defense budget over the last decade) has been spent on a single program. It is as laughable as it is incorrect.

Now we can see you have never read the Constitution. Article 1, section 8, clauses 11-16 grants Congress, and ONLY Congress, the authority to declare war, and arm the military. NOT the President. Article 2, section 2, clause 1, clearly declares that the President shall be CIC AFTER the military has been military "called into the actual service of the United States". No where in the Constitution does it say that the President has the power to declare war, or to finance a war, or to even call the military into action. Remember now, we are speaking of the Constitution, not the extra-Constitutional powers of the war Powers Act.

Nowhere in Article 2 Section 2 does it use the word "after". It simply says the President is the Commander in Chief when the military is "called in the actual service of the United States." The military is a full time organization that is always in the actual service of the United States.

I do not argue that the President has the authority to declare war, I argue that he has limited authority (outside of Congressional action), as Commander in Chief to act to protect the United States. This is a debate that has been taking place since the Constitutional Convention however. You assume you are correct - but it is far more complicated than you let on.

Notice that you are saying "Congressional authorization".

Well of course. I think the President should go to Congress for authorization in almost every situation I can think of. However, there are certain times when I do not think it is required.

No, it is just political hype since the programs Obama cut were under the BRAC program of 2005 which he requested a new committee to look into, and the Sequester the GOP authorized which Obama is now seeking to get rid of.

Now we are talking about different things. I am talking about specific weapons programs, not simply base closures and realignments.