War Without End: Part 2: The Warning

In his Farewell Address on January 17, 1961, President Eisenhower said,

"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 industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly 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 military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

...

"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."

...

"To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing inspiration:
We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its spiritual blessings; that those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibilities; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; that the scourges of poverty, disease and ignorance will be made to disappear from the earth, and that, in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love."
(http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm)

In his famous "Chance for Peace" speech, Eisenhower famously said:

"What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

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 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter 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, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

These plain and cruel truths define the peril and point the hope that come with this spring of 1953."
(http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/chance.htm)

And finally, in a President's Press Conference on April 30, 1953, President Eisenhower said:
"Security based upon heavy armaments is a way of life that has been forced upon us and on our allies. We don't like it; in fact, we hate it. But so long as such an unmistakable, self-confirmed threat to our freedom exists, we will carry these burdens with dedication and determination" (p. 94).
(http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/avwebsite/PDF/53text.pdf)

War Without End: Part 1: The Vision

"The essential act of war is destruction, not necessarily of human lives, but of the products of human labor. War is a way of shattering to pieces, or pouring into the stratosphere, or sinking in the depths of the sea, materials which might otherwise be used to make the masses too comfortable, and hence, in the long run, too intelligent. Even when weapons of war are not actually destroyed, their manufacture is still a convenient way of expending labor power without producing anything that can be consumed" (Orwell, 1949, p. 157).

"But it was also clear that an all-around increase in wealth threatened the destruction--indeed, in some sense was the destruction--of a hierarchical society. In a world in which everyone worked short hours, had enough to eat, lived in a house with a bathroom and a refrigerator, and possessed a motorcar or even an airplane, the most obvious and perhaps the most important form of inequality would already have disappeared. ... For if leisure and security were enjoyed by all alike, the great mass of human beings who are normally stupefied by poverty would become literate and would learn to think for themselves; and when once they had done this, they would sooner or later realize that the privileged minority had no function, and they would sweep it away" (p. 156).

"The social atmosphere is that of a besieged city, where the possession of a lump of horseflesh makes the difference between wealth and poverty. And at the same time the consequences of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival" (p. 158).

"The war, therefore, if we judge it by the standards of previous wars, is merely an imposture. ... But though it is unreal it is not meaningless. It eats up the surplus of consumable goods, and it helps to preserve the special mental atmosphere that a hierarchical society needs. War, it will be seen, is now a purely internal affair. ... The war is waged by each ruling group against its own subjects, and the object of the war is not to make or prevent conquests of territory, but to keep the structure of society intact" (p. 164).

Source: Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Eisenhower

Next week, I'll write about our unending war / the permanent war / war without end. (I don't know what to call it yet.) Meanwhile, here are some remarks made by Eisenhower while president. I think they are interesting in light of some of his actions, namely his support for coups in Iran in 1953 and Guatemala in 1954.

[Supposedly the 1953 coup was organized by a CIA agent in Iran, Kermit Roosevelt, and involved concern over the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry. Roosevelt described his activities in his book Countercoup: The struggle for the control of Iran (McGraw-Hill, 1979). As a result of the coup, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ("The Shah") returned to power and ruled for about twenty-five years, until the situation deteriorated and he fled the country. About ten months later, the Iranians seized and held hostage around 50 Americans. (Rarely is any connection between the coup and the hostage 'crisis' discussed.)

United States' support for the coup in Guatemala is documented, for example, in Killing hope: U.S. military and CIA interventions since World War II (William Blum, Common Courage Press, 2004) and online. The coup supposedly benefited U.S. businesses, including the United Fruit Company, whose name was later changed to Chiquita.]

As I say, here are the quotes:
"Third: Any nation's right to form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.
Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.
And fifth: Any nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations."

"We care nothing for mere rhetoric.
We are only for sincerity of peaceful purpose attested by deeds."

"It is a moment that calls upon the governments of the world to speak their intentions with simplicity and with honesty.
It calls upon them to answer the questions [sic] that stirs the hearts of all sane men: is there no other way the world may live?"

"The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither the United States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith--the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.
The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need." [President Johnson would declare his domestic War on Poverty 11 years later: "This administration today, here and now, declares unconditional war on poverty in America," January 8, 1964.]

"The test of truth is simple. There can be no persuasion but by deeds."

All quotes are from the "Chance for Peace Speech," 1953; all emphases are in the original.

Modern History in 65 Words

This brief paragraph by Noam Chomsky perfectly synopsizes the reality that traps us all. My only addition would be mention of the government's master: big business.

"The government does not really hope to convince anyone by its arguments and claims, but only to sow confusion, relying on the natural tendency to trust authority and to avoid complicated and disturbing issues. How can we be sure of the truth? The confused citizen turns to other pursuits, and gradually, as government lies are reiterated day after day, year after year, falsehood becomes truth" (Chomsky, 1973, p. xxv).

Source: Chomsky, N. (1973). For reasons of state. New York: New Press.

David Cay Johnston

David Cay Johnston is a reporter for The New York Times. He writes on tax issues and recently wrote a book, Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich - and Cheat Everybody Else.

Highlights from three articles he has written this year:
"The total income of Americans in 2003, adjusted for inflation, was 4 percent smaller than in 1999, new tax return data showed yesterday. While the number of taxpayers grew by 5.6 million individuals and couples, average income fell even more - by 6.5 percent - while the average wage slipped slightly, with the average job paying $5 a week less."
[Johnston, D. C. (2005, September 28). Income down from 1999, tax data show. New York Times. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from http://www.nytimes.com]

On a Congressional Budget Office report titled Effects of the Federal Estate Tax on Farms and Small Businesses:
"The number of farms on which estate tax is owed when the owners die has fallen by 82 percent since 2000, to just 300 farms, as Congress has more than doubled the threshold at which the tax applies, the Congressional Budget Office said in a report released last week.

"The estate tax raised an estimated $23.4 billion last year. Repeal would shift part of the burden of taxes off the fortunes left by the richest 1 percent of Americans, some of whose fortunes were never taxed, onto the general population. The lost revenue could be made up in three ways: through higher income taxes; reduced government services; or more borrowing, which would pass the burden of current government spending to future generations.

"Next year, when the threshold rises to $2 million per person, just 123 farms will be subject to the estate tax, the study found. And in 2009, when it rises to $3.5 million, only 65 of the nation's 2.2 million farms will be affected, the study said.

"Michael J. Graetz, a professor at Yale Law School who was a tax policy official in the administration of President George Bush, said repeal was primarily a benefit to people with large estates held in stocks and other securities, not to farmers."
[Johnston, D. C. (2005, July 10). Few wealthy farmers owe estate taxes, report says. New York Times, p. A21. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from ProQuest database.]

On the article Inflated Tax Basis and the Quarter-Trillion-Dollar Revenue Question by Joseph M. Dodge and Jay A. Soled in Tax Notes:
"Since 1997, Congress has given the I.R.S. additional funds to audit the working poor even as it has cut money for other audits. As a result, according to I.R.S. data, the working poor are about eight times more likely to be audited than investment partnerships."
[Johnston, D. C. (2005, January 24). Overstating of assets is seen to cost U.S. billions in taxes. New York Times, p. C2. Retrieved October 1, 2005, from ProQuest database.]

Dodge & Soled's article begins:
"An unpublicized problem of crisis proportions is plaguing the administration of the Internal Revenue Code, and it is costing the nation billions of dollars annually. The problem is neither hypertechnical nor hard to discern: On the sale of investments, taxpayers inflate their tax basis and do so with impunity, which results in the underreporting of gains and the overstatement of losses. How is that possible? This article seeks to answer that question, quantify the associated revenue loss, and suggest practical reforms."

Noam Chomsky

How come people who denigrate Noam Chomsky never quote him saying:

"So, in the United States, for example, which is one of the most free and democratic societies there is, by now about three-quarters of the population regard presidential elections as basically a farce-just some game played by rich contributors and the public relations industry, which crafts candidates to say things that they don't mean and don't understand."
(Language, Politics, and Propaganda: Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Jay Brown)

Or this:

Bill Bennett: "Go through the Chomsky work, line by line, argument by argument, and you will see this is a man who has made a career out of hating America and out of trashing the record of this country. Of course, there is a mixed record in this country, why do you choose to live in this terrorist nation, Mr. Chomsky?"

Chomsky: "I don't. I choose to live in what I think is the greatest country in the world, which is committing horrendous terrorist acts and should stop."
(On 9-11: Noam Chomsky debates with Bill Bennett)

Or this:

"People like us are so privileged by comparison with most of the world that to talk about anything that happens to us is almost obscene. There are problems, but nothing like what's faced in most of the world, and in this country, over a long period, many rights have been won - not granted, won. Even some of the things that are best established here like freedom of speech - and in that respect, the United States is maybe the best place in the world."
(On the Repression of Democratic Movements, US Elections, and Future Prospects: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Nancy Nangeroni & Gordene O. MacKenzie)

Hmmm...
I wonder if Noam Chomsky is just very smart and doesn't see the need to state the obvious every five minutes.

Tobacco

Three thousand people died on September 11th. We've spent billions of dollars addressing the problem, and our media and culture are fixated on war and terrorism.

Meanwhile, 400,000 Americans die annually from smoking. Worldwide, smoking kills almost 5 million people a year (that's 14,000 people every day). The World Health Organization says the death toll will jump to 10 million people a year by 2030. That casualty rate is roughly equivalent to the Holocaust happening every year. Smoking is a serious issue that deserves proportional attention and a proportional response.

Source: Schroeder, S. A. (2004, January 15). Tobacco control in the wake of the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement. New England Journal of Medicine, 350(3), 293-301.