How do we change the 'Way We Fight?'

By CasaWood | October 8, 2007

Printer Friendly Comments (12)
Login to Bookmark Email to a Friend
Rating Number of Ratings: 1

Login to Rate
[article image]

by Gary Wood

© October 6, 2007

An acquaintance urged me to watch the Sony Entertainment Documentary “Why We Fight” and I’ve watched it twice now. There was a lot of information concerning the Bush Doctrine and the history behind the rise of what Eisenhower called the ‘Military-Industrial Complex (MIC).’ In his farewell address, in 1961, Eisenhower warned about the dangers this type of standing complex could lead to. “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.” It’s as if he saw into the future when our Congress would relinquish responsibility for declaring war by passing this power to the Executive Branch. Within six months President Bush used the power to begin Operation Iraqi Freedom, the Iraq War.

When Eisenhower delivered his farewell address I was not quite two years old and since that time I had never read the entire address. As I did this earlier tonight I was amazed at the wisdom and insight found within the text. According to what I can find this was not written for him but was penned by him, a culmination of his many years in military and government service. According to his son and granddaughter he was a military man who did not like the ravages of war and actually attempted to stave off the march toward such a strong standing military. He often equated the cost of the growing MIC to hospitals, power plants, houses, and other areas where the money could have been spent in improving daily lives within the United States.

I have reflected for hours on the following lines from his address. “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.” Clearly, he knew it was the duty of the people to remain alert and knowledgeable, yet we have not. Unchecked the MIC is gaining control.

Let me caveat the remaining remarks by stating I have not merely engulfed a single documentary and now believe it is fully true and the government has fully been false. As in all matters the truth usually lies between the two extremes. Many have read my thoughts on the foreign policy of the Bush Doctrine and know I do not support a preemptive strike approach to dealing with the world. Whether we want to admit it or not, the United States has become a militaristic country. We are the bullies on the playground, as my wife put it. Our government is quick to flex the MIC muscle at all signs of concern over the direction of other nations if the direction is not in line with our own. The history of our conflicts the past four and a half decades is easy enough to track. The message we are always given is we fight because we honor freedom, liberty, and strive to promote peace and democracy to those in need. In our desire to promote peace is it wise to always fight? Or do we always seek out reasons for a fight so we can feed the complex?

As my wife and I pondered these questions, and more, a very strong realization came over me. The MIC is a huge part of our economy. The war on terror, or as some call it, the war for terror is the latest raging conflict feeding this economic need. Since Eisenhower bid farewell, however, it is only the next one as there have been wars and insurgencies under every administration since. In 2007 we are spending $12 billion dollars every month in our battle for freedom in Iraq, if that is really what it is all about as many respond when asked why we fight in Iraq. We know Iraq was not because of 9/11; Bush admitted on national television there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Eisenhower would truly see many other things this $12 billion monthly could be invested in to help our nation yet this is a tremendous boost for the companies involved with the MIC and those that rely on the complex for jobs.

Increasing demands from the citizens, those whose duty it is to keep this machine in check, are to end the Iraq War. DownsizeDC.org has a drive on their website which states, “U.S. policy has inflamed the Middle East. It has made terrorism more likely rather than less. We seem to be fighting a war for terror, rather than on terror. This policy must stop.” Whether that is true we cannot deny many jobs are directly linked to the war and if we change the policy the ramifications can truly be devastating for many who rely on our military activities for their livelihood. This is the number one realization, why it had not so clearly dawned on me before I cannot say.

I’ve been busy pressing for a change to the policy of preemptive, intervention or what is being referred to as the Bush Doctrine. It is a terrible way to deal with the world, in my opinion. Not only does it send an insightful message, it is leading us down a road where our country no longer resembles a free society where people enjoy true liberty. Let me one last time refer to Eisenhower’s warning, “As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.” We are reaching a critical crossroad right now, we are marching toward insolvency and the MIC does not appear to care so we the people must, you and I.

Yet, that leads me to the question which began this article, how do we change the way we fight? If you are reading now thinking I am about to provide my insights and answers I am going to disappoint you, trust me when I say I’m not that smart and need your help. I am asking this question because it needs to be elevated to a serious national discussion among all of us. I have no faith that our leadership, our representatives, our press, or the companies charging us billions to fight the war will have an answer. Their answer seems clear; war is good for business and good for the increase and maintenance of control over the people.

We need to heed the warnings of Dwight D. Eisenhower. However, the MIC is so ingrained in all States, counties, cities, and homes how can we change it now without ruining our economy? How can we change it while insuring the terrorists don’t come to our neighborhoods next? Please either continue the discussion or start one with your friends and family today. We must change or we will be the insolvent phantom of tomorrow. We need a plan, we need an answer, how do we change the way we fight?

 


 

How do we change the 'Way We Fight?'
Started October 8, 2007 - First 2 of 12 comment(s)   View all comments
October 9, 2007 11:32 AM
Member Since:
August 3, 2007

Gary, like you, I do not have a specific answer. There is no one, simple solution. There are some steps that I believe would be moving in the right direction. To start, though, it is more important to not be the "bully in the playyard' or would it be effective in the long run to become isolated.

Our MIC (military Industrial Complex) should continue to develop weaponry that will protect us and , in that sense, make us a friendly nation that will become a dreadful enemy.

We should notify Europe that they must stand or fall on their own. We will no longer be the be all and end all of their protection. This will be welcomed by France because they still are sensitive about their position as a strong fighting power. We should , at the same time , agree that we will share military technology with Europe.

Our major problem is twofold--the Mideast and Putin. Putin wants Russia to be THE major military power in the world. This would be alright if Russia did not have a history of aggression and exerting its will over the countries of Europe and Asia. Russia should be influenced to flex their muscles with the Chinese. China, militarily, should be a Russian problem.

The Mideast should be assigned as a European problem with a pledge of assistance from us when called upon. The one exception, and I know many will not agree, but we should stand four square with Israel. I know there are some who feel that our financial and political support for Israel is an "albatross around our neck", but as one who was around and watched their birth and struggle, I believe they deserve the right to live in peace.

Next, the problem that I have the least knowledge about resolving is the current situation in Iraq. At the present, the division of the country into three separate areas seems to me , a very viable alternative.

Lastly, I would remove the UN headquarters from American soil. I would recommend it be located in some Caribbean or South Pacific paradise where the corrupt, do-nothing members can enjoy the sunshine and have less effect on what is really happening in the world. I would maintain American participation, reduce our financial support and spend more time monitoring than acting on issues. We have had little impact on the  decisions made there.

I have over the past two yeasr come to the conclusion that there are "tribes" of people who are inherently bellicose and actually enjoy conflict. I think if we are strong enough to destroy them , and quickly, they will spend their time bothering China and Russia instead of us.

October 9, 2007 11:56 AM
Member Since:
August 3, 2007

PS- I have addressed the issue with regard to "true" war. We need to focus our forces ,  troops and energies on the war within America. Border security should be the tightest in the world. The issuance of work permits should be improved for seasonal workers. Companies that design and build farming machines should receive special tax considerations. People who enter illegally should be removed. No public assistance of any kind should be rendered to an illegal entrant or family.

Legal entrants should be assisted in the same way that American citizens are.

Free trade can be dangerous. Fair trade can be too.  Protectionism, in extreme, would be worse than either free or fair trade. Trade agreements need to be flexible and monitored by economists for quick response to changes in the market place.

Globalism is the solution for the elite of all countries involved, not the citizens or the large middle class. Perhaps I am crazy, but I would rather pay $15 for a Fisher Price toy and have it safe and made by an American than to save $6 on its purchase price. Commercialism of all aspects of life is not the ideal.

A country rich in citizens who are grateful for the land of their birth and its opportunities means more to me than the wealth of the Corporate barons of the world. A country with citizens who can identify its roots, its laws, its privileges and its rights is more important to me than saving dollars on cheap labor items. I feel as if I stand alone. I also, in most cases, realize that shoppers only see goods and prices, we do not see how they got that way.

Americans need to be awakened--they need to, somehow, find how they are being lied to by the main stream media. They need to be enlightened, somehow, on the plusses and minuses of globalization.

If, you all, out there, care more about saving a dollar than saving America, go for it.

PPS I know I am preaching to the choir. The majority of folks who join these blog sites are good and faithful Americans who want to protect our country, but I had to get it out of my system..


Post New Comment to the Discussion

You must login to discuss this item.