The Military Industrial Complex Is The Winner

Commentary By Ron Beasley

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms
industry is new in the American experience. The total influence --
economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every
State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the
imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to
comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition
of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
militaryindustrial
complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist.

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.

~Dwight Eisenhower, 1961

It was a very few years later that Lyndon Baines  Johnson all but admitted that they military industrial complex had won - politically he couldn't end the war in Vietnam  even though he knew it couldn't be won.

It's going to be difficult for us ...prosecute...a war far away from home with the divisions we have here....I'm very depressed about it.  Brcause I see np program from either Defense or State that gives me much hope of doing anything, except just praying and gasping to hold on...and hope they'll quit.  I don't believe they're every going to quit.  And I don't see ...any...plan for victory---militarily or diplomatically.

~LBJ to Robert McNamara, June 21, 1965.

Fast forward to 2010 - different geography, different President, same old story. I can guess that similar conversations are going on in the Obama White House.   So does that make Obama even more evil than George W. Bush?  Andrew Bakevich says yes.. George W. Bush believed in his policy Obama does not.

Bush�s Freedom Agenda ended in abject failure�no liberalizing tide
has swept the Islamic world. The promised Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction and the evidence linking Saddam Hussein to Al Qaeda never
materialized. Implementing the heinous Bush Doctrine of preventive war
in Iraq yielded an insurgency that sent millions fleeing to squalid
refugee camps. As a direct result, thousands of American soldiers were
killed and many thousands more maimed or otherwise deeply scarred.

Despite all of this and more, George W. Bush never wavered. He
remained resolute, his conscience clear. He knew he was doing God�s
work. He was�and no doubt remains today�a true believer. The 43d
president was a well-intentioned fool, who inflicted grievous harm on
his country. Yet when Bush stands before his Maker (or the bar of
History), he will say without fear of contradiction: �I did what I
thought was right.�

Barack Obama is anything but a fool. Yet when called upon to account
for his presidency, honesty will prevent him from making a comparable
claim. �The problems I inherited were difficult ones,� he will say.
�None of the choices were good ones. Things were complicated.�

The Afghanistan war forms part of that complicated inheritance where
good choices are hard to come by. Much as Iraq was Bush�s war,
Afghanistan has become Obama�s war. Yet the president clearly wants
nothing more than to rid himself of his war. Obama has prolonged and
escalated a conflict in which he himself manifestly does not believe.
When after months of deliberation (or delay) he unveiled his Afghan
�surge� in December 2009, the presidential trumpet blew charge and
recall simultaneously. Even as Obama ordered more troops into combat, he
announced their planned withdrawal �because the nation that I'm most
interested in building is our own.�

The Americans who elected Obama president share that view. Yet the
expectations of change that vaulted him to the presidency went well
beyond the issue of priorities. Obama�s supporters were counting on him
to bring to the White House an enlightened moral sensibility: He would
govern differently not only because he was smarter than his predecessor
but because he responded to a different�and truer�inner compass.

Daniel Larison is correct when he says we shouldn't be surprised..  Obama is first and foremost a politician who knows he needs the support of the military industrial complex to maintain power.  Eisenhower is having an I told you so moment from the grave.