The Militarization of America - Essay Example

America at War America at War President Eisenhower's Farewell Address to the nation in 1961 outlined quite a controversial plan for the future safety of America. Through the militarization of his country, Eisenhower believed that the United States could prosper in peace without ever having to actually use the military force that had been acquired since the Second World War. With this new age of military might and respectful peace of which Eisenhower spoke, the man also warned of the responsibilities that came with such internal organization: in particular, the duty of the American government to protect its citizens, the role of technological advancement in the future of the country and the knowledge that must be shared with each American to ensure that no elite ruling group could form. Eisenhower said that "a vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment". The two factors - peace and military might - are naturally at odds with each other and as such it is strange to find that the terms are so often promoted in conjunction with one another. Indeed, America continues along this line of logic still today, albeit in a different way than the former President had imagined. Eisenhower truly believed that the best way to secure peace for his nation was to become impenetrable; he thought that building one of the strongest military forces in the world would dissuade any potential enemies from acting out in a violent manner and taking American lives. Certainly it can be said that no other nation has waged war on America in the years following the Farewell Address, however the crucial difference between Eisenhower's vision and current American military exploits is the use of force upon other nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. Modern America pursues enemies that it perceives as ideological and terrorist threats; in the attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq the United States has sought to retaliate for calculated attacks on American soil. The very presence of terrorism in the modern United States can show both how Eisenhower was justified in his belief of military might for peace, and how despite this proven ideology enemies find ways to strike. America's military strength means that no other nation in the world would seek open combat; therefore opposing views and enemy forces will not be represented by other states but as smaller, dynamic organizations. The President also stressed his belief that America should not rely on the emergency weaponry that could be created by its own individual citizens at short notice; this was the military history of Eisenhower and he was concerned that in the future America should be able to count on its own federal arms reserve. The President had seen the world thrown into war as Nazi Germany and Japan tried to conquer foreign nations and eradicate entire groups of people they considered expendable. Stopping the German forces became one of the most difficult tasks the Allied forces would ever face, and as a result it is understandable that President Eisenhower worried about the future state of his country's military. Certainly in the face of international advancements in terms of arms, the United States could not afford to sit back and hope it would have no need for its military forces to be well-equipped. At the point of the Farewell Address, American federal funding had been vastly increased to its military and Eisenhower expressed his hope that this would continue to be increased as the country invested in scientific research that could change the face of the military completely. The President does not seem to have taken into consideration the fact that at the cue of the United States, other developed nations would decide to bulk up their own military forces in response. Specifically, take the Cold War into consideration and it is easy to see how this idea of an impenetrable nation is inextricable linked to the perception of a dangerous nation. In advancing further and further technologically, the United States piqued the interest and the fear of its political and economic rival, the U.S.S.R., and subsequently the entire world looked on in horror as the two competed incessantly to prove themselves superior in terms of weaponry and political ideology. Eisenhower's presidency was long finished when the Cold War took effect but the more than ten year span of this frightening piece of modern history can be traced directly to the President's belief that the road to peace was paved with artillery. Also included in the Address was Eisenhower's insistence that while technological advancements were necessary in his plan for a secure country, the knowledge amassed must be spread amongst all Americans so that they might understand how to best use (or not use) their armaments in the future. He said "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". This is in summation exactly what Eisenhower wished for his country to be: a peaceful and informed nation that merely happened to be built on military might and technologies. Unfortunately the President didn't take into consideration the fact that Costa Rica is a country entirely without military forces and as such it enjoys a prolonged state of peace. The United States was certainly not in a position to forego military advancements, but perhaps the extension of Eisenhower's goals to such a great degree was unwise considering the direct consequences. America today is not the peaceful nation that Eisenhower promoted, but rather a purveyor of what it deems to be acceptable violence on foreign soil. Building up the American military has surely provided protection to U.S. citizens who have enjoyed the peace on their own soil, but governments since Eisenhower's time have consistently used the might of the new American military to cultivate their own individual desires as a government. No amount of public knowledge, technological advancement or good intentions can change the fact that America is not the entirely peaceful nation that was spoken of in Eisenhower's vision of the future. Work Cited President Eisenhower's Farewell Address, 1961. America at war essay question: write a detailed critical analysis with particular reference to historical context and themes, structure and use of language. extract in question is: Extract from President Eisenhower's Farewell Address,warning of the Military Industrial Complex 1961 A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organisation today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peace time, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea. Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense;we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments indusrty of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are dirctly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations. 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. Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government. Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intelectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite. It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces new and old, within the principles of our democratic system - ever iaming toward the supreme goal of our free society. Read More