In January, 1961, in his “Farewell Address to the Nation”, President Dwight Eisenhower (5-Star General and Supreme Allied Commander during World War II) cautioned citizens about the rise in power of what he called the Military-Industrial Complex.
Specifically, this President, who knew more about this subject than any previous or subsequent Commander-in-Chief, warned: “…we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex.” And, he added: “We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”
What Eisenhower feared in 1961 has become the reality of today. Basically, the United States exists in a permanent war economy, and has been so for many decades. In 2016, American military expenditures totaled $611 billion, which is twice the amount of China and Russia…combined. In addition, the United States is the world’s largest military arms exporter, selling $48 billion in 2016.
Our Nation’s well-heeled arms industry tends to contribute heavily to incumbent members of Congress. Any aspirant for public office who isn’t on the “correct” side of the National Rifle Association has an uphill battle for election.
It is no wonder that America seemingly has its fingers in every conflict around the world. As George Kennan wrote in 1987, “Were the Soviet Union to sink tomorrow under the waters of the ocean, the American military–industrial complex would have to remain, substantially unchanged, until some other adversary could be invented. Anything else would be an unacceptable shock to the American economy.”
Nothing much has changed since 1987 except the villains: then, it was the Russians; now, we have the Russians, the Chinese, the North Koreans, and pretty much all of the Middle East to “worry about”. Breaking news this week revealed that, unbeknownst to most Americans, the United States military has troops on the ground in quite a few African nations. Say what?!
So, the military-industrial complex is thriving; business is booming.
It should, therefore, not surprise us, to find some concern in Washington D.C. by Senator John McCain (ex-POW, Vietnam War fighter pilot) about the further stacking of the Defense Department with high officials barely removed from the private weapons industry. President Trump recently nominated John Rood, a top executive at Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest defense company, to take over as Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. The number two man in the Department of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, was a longtime employee of Boeing, and the Secretary of Defense himself worked for General Dynamics after a long military career.
Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and General Dynamics are three of the top five weapon systems producers in the world.
And, for reasons only he understands, President Trump has surrounded himself in the policy-making realm with ex-Generals. They would include: John Kelly, White House Chief of Staff; James Mattis, Secretary of Defense; and, National Security Advisor, H.R. McMaster.
There has long been a tradition in American government of keeping the political and military sectors separate, because elected officials decide policy and military officials implement policy. President Eisenhower, in his speech, might have been alluding (somewhat) to the intrusion of military influence into policy making when General Douglas McArthur, a popular WWII hero, disobeyed President Truman in Korea and was summarily fired for insubordination. McArthur thought he was “in charge” and had to be reminded that he wasn’t. At all. Similarly, General George Patton, a great hero in World War II, lost perspective and had to be publicly dressed-down, a decision that then General Eisenhower probably participated in.
Many people are concerned about the military presence in President Trump’s cabinet; i.e. that military thinking could hamper policy development by limiting the type of advice the President gets. Military men tend to be very task oriented and gravitate toward blunt force solutions. As the saying goes, “If the only implement in your tool box is a hammer, every problem begins to look like a nail.”
It is very evident that President Trump, who is uber-authoritarian and embraces blunt force tactics in his business and, now, his political endeavors, finds comfort being surrounded by ex-military superstars. And, not having served in the military himself, Mr. Trump has a hard time understanding why others (who may have served) would not appreciate the pedestal upon which the President has placed “his generals”.
Of course, when it served him in his campaign for the Presidency, Trump regularly bad-mouthed American military leaders for “losing” wars that, in the draft dodger’s opinion, we should have prevailed. Candidate Trump even went so far as to insult ex-POW, now Senator John McCain, for being captured and tortured for years by the North Vietnamese: “Heroes are guys who don’t get captured.”
Now that Donald Trump is the boss, however, he is a great supporter of the military (-industrial establishment?), and thinks “his generals” are beyond reproach. And, by extension, he feels that their credibility should rub off on him and insulate the President from criticism.
Recently, the President was called out by the press for not contacting the families of U.S. soldiers who died in an ambush in Niger (why were they there in the first place?). The President responded by claiming that he had made more condolence calls than previous Presidents. This immediately proven to be false. Then, according to first-person accounts, Mr. Trump hurriedly called the wife of one of the dead servicemen and made an offhand comment in his condolences that her husband “knew what he signed up for”. The call was received on a speakerphone, with a Congresswoman in the car consoling her close friend, the grieving widow. When the President’s faux-pas was brought to public attention, Trump denied it. Then, he called the grieving widow a liar and the Congresswoman “wacky” and a liar, to boot. Needless to say, the incident became the latest Trump shitstorm.
So, what happens next? The President reaches into his toolbox of respected ex-generals and trotted out Chief of Staff John Kelly to save the day. And, to his shame, one-time Four Star General Kelly covered for the President, talking down to people who aren’t military, as if those who have “served” exist on a higher plane, and calling the Congresswoman an “empty barrel” who was lying and grandstanding. His basic thrust was, to the Press, the widow, and the Congresswoman…was “Shut up, and that’s an order!” And, thereby, debased himself on behalf of his shameless President.
By the next day, it was pointed out that the “grandstanding” that Kelly alluded to by the Congresswoman was disproved by a videotape of the alleged incident.
In typical Trump Administration fashion, the White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders then doubled-down on the fiasco, when she stated, “If you want to go after Gen. Kelly, that’s up to you. But I think that if you want to get into a debate with a 4-star Marine general, that’s something that’s highly inappropriate,” she said.
That was a very revealing statement that goes a long way toward understanding the Trump Administration and it’s reverence of militarism in the United States. As if…an ex-General, now operating in the political arena, is above reproach, should not be called out when lying, should not be ashamed of disrespecting a grieving widow? Since when did our democracy elevate ex-military officers to that status? We are not operating a Third-World military junta here…or, are we? Is that what Trumpism is all about?
As of this writing, there have been no apologies to the grieving widow by Press Secretary Sanders, Chief of Staff Kelly, or President Trump, who caused the entire kerfluffle by his offhand and less than empathetic words to a dead soldier’s wife. Of course, President Trump has never been known to apologize for any mistakes that he’s made. “Never happened”, “Fake news”, etc.
But, I digress.
(Update: Ex-General, now White House Chief of Staff Kelly this week stepped deeper into the political cesspool when he opined about the Civil War and the real reason why it was fought: “failure to compromise”! He made this inane statement in his defense of Confederate General Robert E. Lee, explaining that he was actually a heroic figure, not a traitor, who just got caught up in some fracas because the politicians couldn’t compromise (again!) on slavery. It seems, based upon this position that Kelly is taking (on behalf of his Boss?), that slavery is OK in moderation…??? WTF!)
It’s times like this that provide a pretty good explanation why military men typically don’t make great politicians. And, this is the guy who is President Trump’s co-pilot in the White House. Scary.
The military-industrial complex that I am most concerned about is this state of mind in certain quarters of America (a majority?) that militarism is OK as an appropriate guiding doctrine for our democratic Nation. That is how fascism arose in Germany.
Most elected officials in Washington D.C. have never served in the military. Mr. Trump pulled out all of the stops to avoid being drafted when he was a young man. And, he wasn’t the only one. And, since that time (Vietnam War era), our military has operated on a volunteer basis. So, since 1973, over 44 years now, most young- to middle-age Americans have not served, and, subsequently have no real clue about military life and the military way of thinking. That’s two generations of citizens and voters who have gotten their understanding of military service from Rambo movies and the like.
I served in the Vietnam era, did not care for military life, and moved on after my four-year volunteer stint. But, it was a valuable exercise for me…one that, I believe, every young American should experience, like they do in Israel. Why? Because part of our job, as citizens, is voting for individuals in the Federal government who shape policy as it relates to the military establishment and the use of military power. The better that one understands what the military is, and isn’t, the better than he or she is equipped to make informed decisions such as electing a President, Senator, or Congressman.
I read something the other day that brings home the point about the difference between civilians and the military, and how they think differently. It was was some advice given by an old Marine colonel to young man considering a military career. He said, “So you want to be a career soldier? Good for you. But remember that the longer you stay in uniform, the less you will really understand about the country you protect. Democracy is the antithesis of the military life; it’s chaotic, dishonest, disorganized, and at the same time glorious, exhilarating and free — which you are not. After a while, if you stay in, you’ll be tempted to say, “Look, you civilians, we’ve got a better way. We’re better organized. We’re patriotic, and we know what it is to sacrifice. Be like us.” And you’ll be dead wrong, son. If you’re a career soldier, you may defend democracy, but you won’t understand it or be part of it. What’s more, you’ll always be a stranger to your own society. That’s the sacrifice you’ll be making.”
A soldier is trained to obey orders from his superior officers. Criticism is not permitted. And, there is a way of doing things, by the book…”there’s the Army way and then there’s wrong way”. Additionally, and this is important, achieving an important military objective could mean the decision to sacrifice fellow soldiers (i.e. “take that hill at all cost”).
Civilians have the ability to obey or not obey their bosses (of course, they might get fired!). Free speech is an important right in the civilian world, and it’s the way that scandals are uncovered by the Press and good ideas pop up in the workplace. In the public sector, there is some merit to the old saw that says, “If you’re doing something the way it’s always been done, then you’re doing it the wrong way.” Experimentation equals innovation, and that’s how society moves the ball forward.
So, when we thank a serviceman for his “service”, we’re not only thanking him and his family for the risk he has taken on behalf of America, but also the sacrifice he has made personally…because he is now different from you in the way he sees things and thinks about problems and issues, and he’ll always be that way.
We have a lot of these people out in society now, and one reads about some of them in the newspaper all of the time: guys who have PTSD, can’t adjust to civilian life, become suicidal or homicidal, etc. And, others who can’t get the militarism out of their system…they’ve joined paramilitary groups, feel that they’ve got to carry weapons at all times, demonstrate animosity toward sectors of society that they feel are “unpatriotic”, and harbor thoughts of left-wing conspiracies to overthrow the United States, etc. “White Nationalists” fit this profile, and there seems to be a rise in this type of militaristic political movement which proclaims that the public is “soft” on crime, not patriotic, too critical of authority, etc.
We have in America right now a perfect storm of political leadership, the underlying military-industrial economic momentum, and a society which seems complacent about the application of military thinking to civilian issues. In my opinion, this is a recipe for trouble. If the Administration continues its bellicose, militaristic stance toward other nations and it own citizens, we could be headed toward facism. Alternately, if the voters reject Trumpism in coming elections, we may run into an uprising by the President’s white nationalistic base of support…and be looking at a civil uprising, pitting well-armed, militaristic “patriots” against the rest of society.
We’re damned if we do, damned if we don’t.
I worry about this.