Warnings or Prophecies?

What would you say if I told you that two well respected American military commanders gave grave warnings against the buildup of military forces in America? What if I explained that both of these men went on to become President of the United States? And what if I then told you that these two men were George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower? Would you believe what they had to say? Two of our greatest generals and most beloved presidents warned this nation of the potential dangers to the Union should we allow the military to become too powerful in this country. Interestingly, both warnings came in the form of a farewell address to the nation as they left the office of president. These warnings have consistently been ignored over the past fifty years with the result being a constant state of armed conflict across the globe to protect American "interests".

Fortunately, it appears that someone actually listened to Ike when he insisted, "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". Eugene Jarecki's recent documentary, Why We Fight, explores some of the reasons why America has been involved in so many conflicts over the past fifty to sixty years. Jarecki's narrative begins with Eisenhower's farewell address in which he stated that "unwarranted influence…by the military-industrial complex" could "endanger our liberties or democratic processes". The full weight of this prophesy has only recently been realized with such legislation as the Patriot Act, and congress's resolution giving the president unprecedented authority to wage war at his discretion. Jarecki's narrative becomes powerful as he intertwines Eisenhower's words with C-SPAN footage of congress's resolution. The cause and effect can clearly be seen.

Key differences exist, however, between Eisenhower's address, Washington's address and Jarecki's documentary. Washington was the most extreme of the three, warning the people quite sternly of the dangers of even holding a standing national army. He studied the many armed conflicts that continued to spring up in Europe over the previous two thousand years. Drawing from this knowledge of military history and his own experiences in both the French-Indian War and American Revolution, Washington beseeches the people to "avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican Liberty". Eisenhower acknowledged the necessity of a strong military establishment to both deter future threat and protect from imminent dangers in a modern world. Jarecki's narrative only shows the extreme lengths to which the military-industrial complex will go to subvert democracy and generate a continuing state of war.

Jarecki edits out some of the more compelling arguments Eisenhower makes for balance in the military, focusing his attention almost exclusively on Ike's warning against the overreaching buildup of military forces. While this selective quoting favors Jarecki's documentary of the consequences of military excess and collusion with government and industry, it does disservice to both Eisenhower and Jarecki's argument. Susan King, writing for the Los Angeles Times, interviewed Jarecki for her article "Warnings of War". She writes, "[Jarecki] says he's passing Eisenhower's warnings on to Americans 'so they can take stock and be vigilant to the dangers to our democracy implicit in the military-industrial complex and more broadly in the kind of imperial direction that this country is heading'". What he conveniently glazes over is Eisenhower's firm belief that a strong military would be necessary to protect America in a modern world. It may be that Jarecki feels the argument for a strong military has been made time and time again in our culture over the past fifty years and does not need to be rehashed. However, the absence of these parts of Eisenhower's speech from the documentary tended to give the entire film an anti-military, anti-industry slant. Clearly, Eisenhower was not either of these.

I found some of the economic comments and Eisenhower's warnings against the federalization of scholarly activities compelling. One powerful line from Ike's address in particular finds itself dropped on Jarecki's editing room floor: "We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations". Jarecki portrays another of Eisenhower's speeches that puts in very finite terms the cost of modern warfare:

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 population. It is two fine fully equipped hospitals. 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.

Bruce Kauffmann finds the same resonant message of balance in Eisenhower's address in his recent article "'Ike' got it right in farewell address; He knew how the U.S. military fit in the world". Published in the Telegraph – Herald, Kauffmann points out, "A careful reading of this address reveals that Eisenhower's remarks were actually quite balanced". He further explains, "What really concerned Eisenhower was that America was entering uncharted territory with respect to the size of the military and its influence on national life and its cost". The material cost of war has only increased since 1961.

I find it extremely fascinating that two of the clearest military critics were two of its most esteemed and famous generals. We have ignored, as a society, two of our greatest military minds, two of America's greatest heroes, and we pay the price daily in American blood, world respect, and economic stability. Perhaps Eugene Jarecki provides us with no solutions to this apparent problem in foreign policy because no clear solutions readily present themselves.

I commend Mr. Jarecki for attempting to follow the legacy of George Washington and Dwight D. Eisenhower and educate the citizens who must make informed choices and act upon them if we are to back away from this precipice of self-destruction we are currently rushing headlong toward. I fear his work may be too little, too late. When will the price of war become too high even for Americans to bear? Unfortunately, the defense industry now dominates our economy and industrial base. Weapons are one of the few remaining hard goods America still manufactures domestically. A reduction in defense spending now will almost assuredly lead to recession, perhaps even full-blown depression. And if it does, we deserve it. We failed to listen to the voices of reason in our own country. Economic decline may be the only way this country will awake from its war-induced stupor and recognize how far we have strayed, as a culture, from the values of our founding fathers.

Are we even asking the right questions?

Raymond Kurzweil, inventor of the Kurzweil electric piano and renowned thinker, believes that, with the aide of genetic engineering and nanorobotics, man might achieve immortality in his own lifetime. Simultaneously bounding with possibilities for good and evil, genetic technology raises some critical socio-ethical questions over who should control both the knowledge and application of a technology that promises, according to Kurzweil, to usher in the next phase of human evolution on earth. Perhaps another question needs to be answered first: should mankind even be allowed to possess this technology?

Some of the greatest technological advancements in human history have been used as instruments of oppression, war, and death. Some modern examples include nuclear, demolition, and biochemical technologies. One of the earliest genetic researchers was Dr. Josef Mengele, the now-infamous Nazi physician at the Auschwitz death camp. Where will we draw the line with regards to acceptable application of genetic and cloning technology? Will the rewards of using the technology outweigh the costs? Scientists may cure diseases and severe injury with this technology, but it may also be used by less noble minds as a twenty-first century ethnic cleansing. Instead of killing the ethnic minorities, their genetic diversity will be removed, quietly, from all future generations of children. After fifty years, ethnic cleansing is completed forever.

These questions must be answered before any particular argument for or against cloning and genetic technology moves me to its cause. I fear these questions may require more time to answer than the development of the actual technologies. If that happens, any decisions we may come to as a people could already be too late.

I yell at the refs

The air has grown grisp, the skies are drifting toward gloom, turkey day is around the corner and that all means...FOOTBALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh it's here, baby. Oh yes, it's truly, truly football season now. The BCS is simultaneously shaping up, and from what I can tell, there's a lot of people who are ready to just ship it out. I'm one of them. I've always been an advocate of a NCAA Football Tournament. College football needs a playoff to decide a true national champion. The conferences have all come up in play over the past ten years, the Pac-10, ACC, and Big-12 being most notable. There's just too many great teams out there these days to let a bunch of computers, some coaches, and the media crown a national champion. Times have changed, so needs the NCAA. They've done a tremendous marketing job with the men's college basketball tournament, March Madness, the Final Four, and so on. Great job, now time to turn your eye toward a football tournament.

Security or SECURE(minor)ITY?

What price would you pay for security? Is it more just to punish the innocent for the sake of the guilty or free the guilty for the sake of the innocent? Mankind has asked these questions since he first collected in social units. One of the oldest stories in the Bible shows Abraham literally haggling with God to spare the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah if but ten righteous people lived in the population. All societies struggle to find the best answer for these questions.

Michelle Malkin seems particularly interested in tackling these and similar questions in her new book In Defense of Internment, an investigation into World War II internment camps in America. I am very pleased to see the mainstream media posing questions about the balance between civil liberty and national security. We both desire to live in a country that is free and safe. Even more pleasing is her decision to investigate the American internment camps during World War II, a topic too rarely examined in the American consciousness. I sincerely hope that her book, and the facts that she presents, will spark a debate in the public forum on how and why we detain people during wartime.

I concede that the government was attempting to protect both their military assets and civilians on the west coast during this time. There were numerous attacks on the U.S. and Canadian homeland during the months after Pearl Harbor and leading up to the internment of Japanese and Europeans. The government feared imminent invasion of North American by the Japanese during 1942. However, I believe justice and personal liberty are among the most important and cherished values of our society. The Declaration of Independence states that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." I also agree with Benjamin Franklin when he asserted, "that it is better [one hundred] guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

Innocent Americans, Japanese, and Europeans suffered during their relocation to American internment camps in World War II. Many lost property that was never fully recovered, if recovered at all. I want to live in a safe America just like Michelle Malkin, and I do agree that the government has a responsibility to protect its people, both from external and internal threat. I am also certain, though, that we can find alternative methods of protecting ourselves that do not require the government to suspend the rights that so many brave men and women have fought and died to secure for over two hundred years.