It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Military Industrial Complex

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
I wrote a paper for school, about the MIC, I just wanted to share it with all of you guys. I hope you enjoy it.

Military Industrial Complex
President Eisenhower, born October 14, 1890, died on March 28, 1969. President Eisenhower was appointed to Five Star General in 1942, and was the Allied Supreme Commander for the troops invading France, during the Second World War. In 1952, President Eisenhower entered the presidential election and won, against Senator Stevenson. President Eisenhower also allowed two new states into the union: Hawaii and Alaska. In 1954, with the decision of the Brown v. the board of education, the Supreme Court ruled all the states that had segregated schools were unconstitutional. In 1957, Arkansas refused to adhere to the Supreme Court Decision, of desegregation. President Eisenhower placed Arkansas National Guard under federal control and escorted nine black students to Little Rock Central High School: an all-white school. After serving two terms as President, Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his farewell speech to the people in the United States of America.

One of the most important parts of the speech was” 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.” The Military Industrial Complex is by definition a concept commonly used to refer to policy relationships between governments, national armed forces, and the industrial sector that supports them. This leads to question of the validity of the statement made by President Eisenhower. Was there really any threat by the Military Industrial Complex to our political system as President Eisenhower suggested? Does that threat still exist in our current political system? Throughout the following rhetorical analysis I will present you with the evidence that what President Eisenhower spoke of was true and it still continues to be a major problem for the American People today .

In the spring of 1953, President Eisenhower gave his Chance of Peace Speech which was directly pointed towards the Soviet government of Russia. Within the speech was a passage which directly correlated with his farewell speech, “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. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 populations. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people”. This is what leads one to believe that his farewell speech followed in a similar fashion.

The Military Industrial Complex! Why was President Eisenhower so adamant into point to this system and exposing their ruthless nature? Also, why did President Eisenhower explicitly say “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”?
Throughout the 21 century we have witnessed the effect of two wars, horrendous attacks on our country and the failure of industry and their less than noble accounting practices. We have witness banks receiving unimaginable amounts of moneys from the taxpayers. We have witnessed the same banks we bailed out, turn around and repose the homes of millions of Americans, without pity or remorse. We have witness the mess in Detroit and our money’s going to save them, This leads one to believe that what President Eisenhower was speaking about in his Farewell Address to the Nation has to be true, and we must all see these patterns to understand them.

Patterns of the Military Industrial Complex can be clearly identified by a report created by “The Project for the New American Century” (P.N.A.C.) named “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” (R.A.D.). Several key members of the PNAC include, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz. All these individuals where working on RAD in 1998, during President Clinton’s Administration. In a letter to President Clinton in 1998, PNAC stats
“We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor”. (PNAC Letter to President Clinton on Iraq )
And,
“We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.” (PNAC Letter to President Clinton on Iraq)
Within the RAD report contains the evidence that 1) there is a Military Industrial Complex 2) that individuals in positions of power within our government seek to promote this system 3) The influence that these individuals have is unprecedented. Quoted from the R.A.D.
“In sum, the 1990s have been a decade of defense neglect. This leaves the next president of the United States with an enormous challenge: he must increase military spending to preserve American geopolitical leadership”. (RAD 08)
When President Bush Jr., took office in 2001, many of his cabinet members where on the committee that wrote the RAD. John Bolton, Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. Dick Cheney- Vice-President. Lewis Libby, Chief of Staff to the Vice President. Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense. As one can tell most of these positions, are of military significance. When President Bush, published his Quadrennial Defense Review, it closely mirror that of RAD.
September 11, 2001, was an attack on the People of the United States by “terrorists”. The word “terrorist” by definition: is a radical who employs terror as a political weapon. In the RAD report there was a paragraph stating that to accomplish the military spending required to accomplish this “American hegemony” a “New Pearl Harbor” must happen, quoted from the RAD.“the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor” (RAD. 51)
On September 20, 2001, nine days after the “terrorist” attacks on the twin towers. The PNAC sent a letter to President Bush. Which states;
“It may be that the Iraqi government provided assistance in some form to the recent attack on the United States. But even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism. The United States must therefore provide full military and financial support to the Iraqi opposition. American military force should be used to provide a “safe zone” in Iraq from which the opposition can operate. And American forces must be prepared to back up our commitment to the Iraqi opposition by all necessary means.” (PNAC Letter to President Bush on the War on Terrorism)
During the war in Afghanistan, the nation heard a war cry from the President Bush. Within this war cry the President clearly stated there WHERE Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in Iraq. President Bush gave conclusive evidence that there where WMD’s, yet nine years later that seems to fallacy of his administration. All one has to do is read the RAD to conclusively say the Military Industrial Complex is on the move.
One believes President Eisenhower main point to the American people was to deny ignorance, 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. In the world of politics’, industry, multinational corporations, and military, they advise us that they know the way for a better future, that they are the experts and we should embrace ignorance rather than to eradicate it from the population. For example, Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, during the Clinton admiration. Once President Bush took presidential Office, Cheney resigned of the CEO of Halliburton and was appointed to Vice President.
Once appointed to the office of Vice President, Dick Cheney was supposed to sever all ties to the company of Halliburton, which he stated several time on CBS news. Yet Dick Cheney was receiving deferred compensation from the company Halliburton. Was there still a connection to Halliburton, as the Mass Media presented? Was Dick Cheney still involved in Halliburton’s Future?
In 2003, President Bush asked congress for 489.3 million dollars to place a contact to replace and repair the oil field of Iraq. The sole contractor that was asked was Halliburton sub-company Kellogg Brown and Root. On 2005, a report from MSNBC reported that Halliburton Quarterly profit rose to 1.1 billion dollars, Halliburton themselves reported that “2005 was the company’s best in its 86 year history”. A 7 billion dollar contract was awarded to Halliburton to rebuild oil fields and to fight fires. This contract was awarded even before the war started. Quote from CNN Money:
“The Army issued the contract without taking other bids, that the details have not previously been made public, and that the contract was awarded on an open-ended, "cost-plus" basis -- meaning Halliburton gets reimbursed for its costs, plus a percentage of those costs as a fee. The Army responded that the contract was awarded to Halliburton's Kellogg Brown & Root Services unit because, before the war, it had already developed a detailed, classified plan to help the Army put out fires and repair oil-field damage”. (CNN)
There are several lessons to be learned from the rise of Power of the Military Industrial complex President Eisenhower spoke about. I have given you the highest levels of that influence. “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.” Will you the reader continue to deny the existence of the Military industrial Complex? Or will you the reader be one of citizen’s that is informed like President Eisenhower spoke about. “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”




Works Cited
Gongloff, Mark. “Iraq rebuilding contracts awarded”. March 25, 2003. February 13, 2011
money.cnn.com...
.
Google Timeline. “Profit history of Halliburton” n.d. February 13, 2011
www.google.com...:1&tbo=u&ei=Q-lVTZeOFI6CsQOf29ibDA&oi=timeline_result&ct=title& resnum=11&ved=0CEMQ5wIwCg

Murphy, Jarrett. “Cheney Halliburton Ties Remains”. September 26, 2003. February 13 2011
www.cbsnews.com...

Project for the New American Century. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for the New Century”. September 2000. February 13, 2011.


Stockbauer, Bette. “Rebuilding America’s Defenses- A Summary” n.d. February 13, 2011
www.informationclearinghouse.info...


edit on 27-4-2011 by morf991 because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by morf991
Once appointed to the office of Vice President, Dick Cheney was supposed to sever all ties to the company of Halliburton, which he stated several time on CBS news. Yet Dick Cheney was receiving deferred compensation from the company Halliburton. Was there still a connection to Halliburton, as the Mass Media presented? Was
edit on 27-4-2011 by morf991 because: (no reason given)


I have mixed thoughts on Eisenhowers MIC speech that I wont go into here, but I wanted to address one specific example you mentioned.

Cheney sold his Haliburton stock after the 2000 election and put all his holdings in a blind trust. A blind trust is an instrument used to avoid conflict of interest managed by an unknown outside financial adviser manager. Cheney’s trust was a specific kind of trust known as a "Gift Trust Agreement". Under this particular kind of Trust, the proceeds from sales of Cheney’s stock options were donated to charity. All proceeds from the trust went to the University of Wyoming, George Washington University Medical Center, and Capital Partners for Education which grants financial aid to poor DC students to go to private or religious schools.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Ok he sold his stock....but was he still receiving deferred payments from Halliburton? Also, why was his company the only company chosen to rebuild the fields in Iraq even before the war started? A HUGE conflict of interest there, am sure everyone will say it..even if you don't believe in the MIC.

Also, One question: Did this paper have sufficient evidence pointing to the MIC? (I would perfer your responces rather than the teachers)....Basically was the thesis supported by the examples and quotes I used?
edit on 27-4-2011 by morf991 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
ah isn't it grand to see a biased propaganda piece at work

the so called military industrial complex legend.

well here are some facts you have seemed to neglect

weapons systems that are decades old some 20 to 50 years old to name a few tanks,apcs,planes,bombs,ammunition and a myriad of others

and not mention of general electric corporation and the fact what little newer weapons systems we have and most now are all outsourced to other parts of the world.


its no wonder you got a good grade for a factually inaccurate piece of work

meh
edit on 27-4-2011 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by morf991
Ok he sold his stock....but was he still receiving deferred payments from Halliburton? Also, why was his company the only company chosen to rebuild the fields in Iraq even before the war started? A HUGE conflict of interest there, am sure everyone will say it..even if you don't believe in the MIC.

Also, One question: Did this paper have sufficient evidence pointing to the MIC? (I would perfer your responces rather than the teachers)....Basically was the thesis supported by the examples and quotes I used?
edit on 27-4-2011 by morf991 because: (no reason given)


His deferred payments from Halliburton were independent of the company’s performance after he resigned. I personally believe there was not a conflict of interest but there do appear to be an appearance of one.

I think your paper was superficial in its analysis and on a scale of 1-10 I would give your hypotheses a 2.5 based on your examples. The influence of the MIC (and yes, there is one) is more complex than what you presented. Having worked on one large defense related project I had a unique window into one aspect, of what I believe, is its most damaging effects.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   


Having worked on one large defense related project I had a unique window into one aspect, of what I believe, is its most damaging effects.


Can you elaborate on this further? Am curious of the aspect that you experienced.



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
ah isn't it grand to see a biased propaganda piece at work

the so called military industrial complex legend.

well here are some facts you have seemed to neglect

weapons systems that are decades old some 20 to 50 years old to name a few tanks,apcs,planes,bombs,ammunition and a myriad of others

and not mention of general electric corporation and the fact what little newer weapons systems we have and most now are all outsourced to other parts of the world.


its no wonder you got a good grade for a factually inaccurate piece of work


Are Americans supposed to be upset when the equipment they use is fifty years old, going by your example, and still kept in functioning order? Wasn't it built too last, given it's high quality and machining to begin with? As with twenty year old equipment, that certainly should be. Don't tell me the top operating military can't operate their organization's mechanical upkeep among their staff, or should be treating the equipment the same way the disposable society does?


Here's the picture I got from a scan ...

Lockheed's triumphant bid / Defense contractor wins $200 billion Pentagon deal for its X-35 fighter jet
October 27, 2001


and not mention of general electric corporation and the fact what little newer weapons systems we have and most now are all outsourced to other parts of the world.


Offshore doesn't mean outside American interests. Cheaper labour, closer resources, even leeching resources from puppet regimes is ongoing, besides legitimate contracts everywhere! Lockheed-Martin is home-based and two-hundred billion ahead by 2016


Lockheed Martin Corp. won the biggest contract in military history yesterday, beating rival Boeing Co. in a heated dogfight for a $200 billion deal to build a fleet of high-tech fighter jets for U.S. and British armed forces.

U.S. Air Force Secretary James G. Roche announced at the Pentagon that Lockheed Martin of Bethesda, Md., won an $18.9 billion engineering and development contract for the new supersonic jet known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The contract is expected to be the first step leading to the delivery of about 3,000 jets beginning in 2008.

Lockheed Martin's victory is expected to produce more jobs for California than if Chicago's Boeing had won, with much of the design and testing to be done in Southern California by its industry partner Northrop Grumman Corp.

st will to go to Lockheed's aeronautics division in Fort Worth, Texas, which makes F-16 fighters. Lockheed has said the new contract would create about 9,000 new jobs at that plant.

In the Bay Area, the deal could be a boon for subcontractors such as Kaiser Electronics in San Jose, which is designing the 20-by-8-inch full-color, touch- screen cockpit display for the Lockheed Martin X-35, its prototype of the Joint Strike Fighter.


articles.sfgate.com...

U.S., European Weapons Makers Still Dominate Arms Bazaar
March 4, 2011


UNITED NATIONS, Mar 3, 2011 (IPS) - The world's key arms manufacturers are still firmly entrenched in the United States and Western Europe, while some of the newly-emerging military industries in China, India, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Israel, Turkey and Kuwait are trailing mostly far behind.

A new study released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) points out that only 10 of the world's 100 largest arms manufacturers are now based in Asia and the Middle East, with none in Latin America or Africa.


www.globalresearch.ca...

The US-NATO 'Missile Shield' Programme
Timeline and Bibliographical References
April 3, 2008


Missile shields are now a major topic at the present NATO summit. Mr. Bush bangs on about a rogue nation,' seemingly unaware that most of the world think that the United States is the real 'rogue .' Mr. Bush's speech prior to the opening of the United Nations summit was a repeat not only of continued platitudes but also of many accusations made after 9/11 about Iraq - with Iran now the unjustified focus of "evil." Are Mr. Cheney, and his very own 'poodle,' Mr. Bush, pathologically focused on matters 'nuclear', and intent on a forthcoming war?


www.globalresearch.ca...

U.S. Tightens Missile Shield Encirclement Of China And Russia
March 4, 2010


So far this year the United States has succeeded in inflaming tensions with China and indefinitely holding up a new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia through its relentless pursuit of global interceptor missile deployments.

On January 29 the White House confirmed the completion of a nearly $6.5 billion weapons transfer to Taiwan which includes 200 advanced Patriot anti-ballistic missiles. Earlier in the same month it was reported that Washington is also to provide Taiwan with eight frigates which Taipei intends to equip with the Aegis Combat System that includes the capacity for ship-based Standard Missile-3 interceptors.

The Aegis sea-based component of the expanding U.S. interceptor missile system already includes Japan, South Korea and Australia, and with Taiwan added China would be justified in being apprehensive.

On February 28 the U.S. House and Senate foreign affairs committees permitted the “sale to Taiwan of missiles, helicopters and ships valued at about $6.4 billion” despite weeks of protests from China. “The U.S. Defense Department wants to sell Taiwan the most advanced Patriot anti-missile system….The system, valued at $2.8 billion, would add to Taiwan’s network of 22 missile sites around the country….”


www.globalresearch.ca...

So, what's being outsourced and beyond American interests? Edit to add - I'm not saying saying there aren't good examples, worth balancing this portrayal. but - The military industrial complex does appear to be healthy and well. Ours too.

Canada's Military Industrial Complex
Ottawa's Complicity in the Multibillion Dollar Arms Trade
April 21, 2011
www.globalresearch.ca...
edit on 27-4-2011 by Northwarden because: fixed link

edit on 27-4-2011 by Northwarden because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by morf991




Having worked on one large defense related project I had a unique window into one aspect, of what I believe, is its most damaging effects.


Can you elaborate on this further? Am curious of the aspect that you experienced.


Well, not to get into specifics, but a company I used to contract for was chosen to install a portion of a new production line at a defense contractor. I believe the initial contract value was around $175million for our portion of the scope. The specifications from the defense contractor were pretty well written and although extremely long were pretty strait foreword in its terms & conditions, performance specifications for the process, and approved vendors. The equipment was to be up and running within 14 months of the order. Pretty standard delivery terms all in all.

The DOD made its changes and the congrescritters got a hold of it. All of a sudden every portion of the specification changed. The DOD had a panel of PHD’s that met every month to discuss technical aspects of the specification and it changed monthly. Various congressmen on various subcommittees looked at the specifications and were fighting each other tooth and nail to modify the performance criteria or list of approved vendors so that companies in their districts got a piece of the action.

Every change to the specification meant we had to go back and redesign our proposal. Keeping in mind that we were only one part of a much larger overall expansion, other vendors had to do the same. Just when we thought we had seen the last revision of the spec, it would change again because some bolt supplier or steel vendor lobbied his congressman to get a piece of the action. Every change meant we had to do more work, sometimes trivial amounts and sometimes quite extensive. Naturally we cant work for free, so we charged for it. The charges were certainly valid changes in scope and we had every right to do so.

As the unit price of the item was tied to the price of its components, materials, labor, and the facilities in which it was to be me manufactured, price increases from subcontractors like us meant unit prices went up. Schedule delays meant financing charges went up also increasing unit price. Schedule delays also meant that escalation costs for materials and what not, which drove up the unit costs.

I asked my counterpart if this was typical, and he said “sure is”. I then asked him how he can deal with it. He told me it doesn’t matter how far over budget or behind schedule they come in, because they have a paper trail 5 miles long documenting every change and its impact to the schedule and price ….. not that anyone actually bothers to read it. (from what I understand, this is no longer the case and all change orders are scrutinizes pretty closely)

In the end, the item we were helping to build was delivered 24 months after it was supposed to be and its unit cost rose nearly 60%.

Everyone pointed the finger at the defense contractor and they certainly shared some of the blame for not having a pair of balls to just say “NO”, but why would they? They had no financial incentive to say no.

Now all this was for a project that the DOD truly needed to fulfill its mission. What about all the projects pushed by congress that the DOD doesn’t want. What about the projects where a small group of DOD officials circumvent their hierarchy and go directly to influential members of congress after being rebuffed by the Joint Chiefs.

The real issue is that congress can directly involve itself in not just appropriations (which it has every right to) but also in the minutia of DOD projects. They do this to bring money into their districts.

Nothing is wrong with having a dedicated infrastructure to build armaments, Eisenhower said as much, the problem is when it becomes politicized. You wind up getting less and paying more.



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join