Anyone of my age or around there, anyone who studies 20th Century history can bring it forward whenever they want: Eisenhower's presidential farewell speech.
That's the one in which he warns us of the all-pervasive (even back in those days) "military-industrial complex." (On the Yale Law School's website) That was in early 1961, in the recognition that after we had gone through the Second World War, we were also confronted with a pervasive threat of communist, authoritarian dominance by the Soviet Union--the Cold War. It necessitated, without question, the maintenance of a military establishment unheard of in our national or, indeed, world annals. It meant, though, that our heavy industry had to expand to meet unique and ever-demanding needs.
"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience," said Eisenhower. "The total influence....is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government."
And so it continues. The chief authoritarian, ex-, wants no other government but the military, one that he can use the powers of commander-in-chief to dominate. If he takes over again, will make that frighteningly clear. We would become a police state, with law enforcement tied securely to the military to suppress what we once held dear. Indeed, police departments gain the benefits of obsolete military hand-me-downs; it would be an easy transition to accept military commands. With his inherent military powers, he will circumvent Congress and render it pointless.
In the meantime, though, over the last 75 years, we have developed weaponry, in power and scope, that no other country can match (though China's certainly trying). Our defense spending is staggering. Yet, few people considered mainstream politicians ever bothers to complain.
It's a knee-jerk response in every federal budget. The Pentagon says what we need, and we deliver. Any slowdown suggested, any questions asked, are interpreted as weak, naive, and irresponsible. Such is the world that exists and that we have certainly helped create. We are armed to the teeth, and we will stay that way.
It sounds like a monster to which we have capitulated. You might be right about that. But it has had side benefits, too.
In diplomacy, it has put staunch backing behind our words. You want some of this? we keep saying. Nobody does. Yes, we gave up in Vietnam, but only because we had enough soul left to keep ourselves from re-introducing nuclear destruction, though we feared Soviet retaliation, too. Like it or not, that mutually assured deterrence (nicely known as MAD) has kept the peace, or kept the world from being utterly destroyed, for three-fourths of a century.
But with our military-industrial complex operating at full efficiency (and deepening its justifiability), we have also provided weaponry for other nations to utilize to warn away potential invaders from nations we support. This is what NATO has been about, and South Korea.
It has also been what Ukraine has been about. Yes, NATO nations have helped them, too, but our military assistance has been relatively low-key to this point. No news reports have emerged about how much our military resources have been strained by our help to the Ukrainians. We are not under duress. And Ukraine fights on.
Consider the first shipment of weaponry from us to Ukraine, last March:
- 2000 Javelin anti-tank missiles (we'd already sent them more than that pre-war);
- 1000 light anti-armor weapons
- 6000 anti-armor systems
- 100 drones
- 100 grenade launchers
- 5000 rifles
- 1000 pistols
- 400 machine guns
- 400 shotguns
- 20 million rounds of small arms ammo, grenade launch rounds, and mortar rounds
- 70 laser-guided missiles
Chump change. Probably gathering dust and spider webs somewhere.
We get our cake and eat it, too, at least for now. We come off as the great defender of democracy, but lose no enlisted people in the bargain. This is all because of the military-industrial complex, which has turned out an immense storehouse of hardware, ever strengthening, ever updating. (Also because 46 countries, in all, have given things to Ukraine, in an impressive coalition of the willing also attributable to us. Check Wikipedia.)
The food chain continues. Does Poland give Ukraine stuff? It sure does. Because we give stuff to Poland. Do the Germans give Ukraine tanks? They sure do. Because we went first and give Ukraine our tanks.
Committing troops to Ukraine will probably be impossible, given our recent history in Afghanistan and resistance by anti-democratic Republicans. There will be a tipping point at some juncture when attrition meets morale. Either way, we will be looking at capitulation of another kind.
We have not granted Ukraine the use of our jets yet; Ukrainian president Zelinsky has gone to Britain for that help. But the request is coming, especially if the Russians regain ground they've lost. This cannot go on forever without our greater and deeper participation. Britain only has so many jets. We have lots more.
Joe Biden is all right with it for now. More hardware on the way. "Putin has already lost Ukraine," he said the other day. Well, yes, in terms of what he expected. And no, in terms of the fighting itself. As in Vietnam, escalation will happen gradually. But it will happen if Ukraine does not drive Russia out or decide it must negotiate.
In the meantime, though, Vladimir Putin must deal with the silent opponent he can't dismiss: our military-industrial complex, which hasn't dominated the Russo-Ukraine war to this point, but can and might someday soon. Nobody has suggested raising taxes yet. That moment isn't far away.
Be well. Be careful. With some luck, I'll see you down the road.
Mister Mark
No comments:
Post a Comment