Fifty-two years ago, three days before he left office and retired from Washington, U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed the nation on television with what he called “a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts…” This came to be called Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex speech and was unlike any other address by Eisenhower or, indeed, by any of his predecessors. You can read the entire speech (it isn’t very long) here, or even watch it here, but I’ve also included below what I believe to be the most important passage:
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.
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.
The speech was an extraordinary warning from an old general about the very dangers presented by an overzealous military machine — a warning as valid today as it was back then. Maybe more so.
Absolutely more so.
This is the third and last in my series of columns on data security, this time looking forward and suggesting a note of caution. Just as Eisenhower predicted back in 1961, we stand today at the beginning of a whole new military industrial complex, one that promises to be bigger and more pervasive than any that came before. I call it the cyber trough because it’s where so many pigs will soon be feasting.
Wars are powerful tools for economic development. America emerged from World War One a superpower where it had not been one before. World War Two ended a great depression and solidified America’s role as a superpower for another half century. When Eisenhower spoke, the bogeyman was Soviet Russia compelling us to spend $1 trillion on nuclear arms and their delivery at a time when we didn’t even know as a nation what $1 trillion was called, much less how we’d raise it.
Just as Eisenhower predicted, there were a series of events, each engendering a new kind of fear that could only be salved by more arms spending. I’m not saying all this spending was wrong but I am saying it was all driven by fear — fear of mutually assured destruction, of Chinese domination, of Vietnam’s fall, of the USSR’s greater determination, of the very fragility of our energy supplies, etc.
Each time there was a new fear and a new reason to spend money to defeat some opponent, real or imagined.
Then came 9-11, al-qaeda, and its suicide bombers. I had met Carlos, the Jackal — the 1970s poster boy for terrorism — and he wouldn’t have killed himself for any cause. This suicide stuff was new and different and so we took it very seriously, spending another $1 trillion (or was it $2 trillion?) to defeat shoe bombers and underwear burners and any number of other kooks.
Al qaeda changed the game, bringing the action home to America for the first time since Lincoln.
But now the trends that created the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act have somewhat run their courses. Bin Laden is dead and if the military industrial complex is to endure and even thrive in an era of sequestration, we’ll need a whole new class of threats against which to respond and throw money.
Cyber threats.
Washington is gearing-up for cyber warfare. We will conduct it against other nations and they will conduct it against us. As always nations will be served by corporate surrogates and vice versa. But where in the past there was always an identified enemy and a threat that could be clearly targeted, the nature of cyber warfare is that small nations can be as dangerous as large ones and inspired freelancers can be the most dangerous of all.
And to the delight of the military industrial complex, this is one threat — one source of national fear — that is unlikely to go away… ever.
Here’s how a friend of mine who operates inside the Washington Beltway sees it: “The big move here in DC – is to standardize cyber threats as a fact of life. Total integration of cyber fear into the fabric of the economy — cyber-insurance, etc. The building of the next cyber bubble is well under way. All of the beltway companies are embracing the opportunity with amazing haste. It is the ultimate business case for profitability and the profits will be astronomical.”
Here’s the genius in this new threat: every country, every company, every technically smart individual can be seen as presenting a cyber threat. They’ll do it for power, money, patriotism, religion — the reasons are as varied as the ethnicities of the practitioners.
But this time you see we can never win, nor can we even intend to. Cyber war will last forever. The threats will evolve, the enemies will be too numerous, and because we’ll be doing it too as a nation, there’s also the prospect of simple revenge and retribution.
The threat of cyber warfare will drive defense and intelligence spending for the next half-century. It will never be conquered, nor do the warriors really even want that to happen since their livelihoods would go away.
In a paralyzed Congress, cyber warfare will soon be the only true bipartisan cause even though it shouldn’t be a cause at all.
And this is what makes Edward Snowden so important. He’s at best a minor player revealing nothing so far that wasn’t already common knowledge, yet he’s being treated like a threat to global security.
If the intelligence community didn’t have Edward Snowden they would have had to invent him, his value as a catalyst for future government spending is so great.
If that crack about Snowden sounds familiar, remember it’s what Voltaire said of God.
Voltaire, God, and now Edward Snowden: Eisenhower was right! Prepare to be taken advantage of… again.
First comment!!!! Great article, and I hope that the future is not as grim as you paint it to be in this article…
As usual Cringely has it DEAD WRONG. The new threat threat needed to keep the MIC beast alive and growing is not cyber. It is to turn inward. The new threat is the American people themselves. The goal of the NSA and homeland security is to protect the government from the people. Therefore, they desire to know who we are, where we are, and what we are doing at all times. 1984 just arrived a little late.
What if all this technology is really a curse?
Bob concluded with “If the intelligence community didn’t have Edward Snowden they would have had to invent him, his value as a catalyst for future government spending is so great.” So it sounds like you agree with Cringely. Big government needs to protect itself from the people. Eisenhower warned us about the military industrial complex, although even he didn’t go so far as to say the government needed protection from the people, only that the military and industry find it mutually beneficial to spend taxpayer funds on defense.
As Bruce Schneier recently said in a Wired article: No one is asking if the billions spent on NSA actually make us as safe as a similar amount in, say, new FBI agents actually chasing bad guys. You paint a plausible picture that such questions will never be asked. Is there any remedy?
The usual remedy is not a happy one for the empire under discussion. It normally crumbles from within and some other empire rises in power and influence.
In talking to folks about this, most people don’t seem alarmed by the mass deceit played out by the governments. Thus, they won’t do anything. The point at which the general population will rise to action is when their personal peace and affluence is disturbed or curtailed. As long as it appears they can continue enjoying their houses, vehicles, boats, electronics, etc, etc, they will do nothing. When that gets yanked, they might spring into action. If it’s not way past too late by then.
Amazing, I did not recognize you in the audience as I was presenting the link between Eisenhower and cloud security at OHM 2013 🙂 [just kidding]
You can see my presentation on slideshare
https://www.slideshare.net/pveijk/ohm2013-cloud-security-101-slideshare
(there is also a Star Wars reference in it)
Keep it up!
You’re far more likely to die in the bathtub or at the hands of local police than you are to die from terrorism. Look up the statistics then ponder what good all those trillions could do.
Fear sells, whose buying?
Politicians are selling, the voters are buying.
I don’t think the voters specifically need to buy the lies.
The media companies are exploiting bugs in human psychology to create a pliable population. The voter turnout is pathetically low, and the people who do vote are influenced by ridiculous and irrelevant arguments.
So, the government people only have to convince people who are invested in the success of the government. This society has a lot more social mobility than a lot of other societies, but it’s still unjust.
The tech companies are not making it much better. As the difference between Lavabit and Google demonstrated, people can become invested in the government’s success at an increasingly young age. At 32 with a small company, Ladar Levison could afford to defy the government. At 36-ish at the time, with supervision from Schmidt and a huge number of dependents, Page and Brin had to participate in PRISM.
So I suppose terrorism isn’t nearly as big of a deal as bathtubs or policemen right? Maybe we should spend those trillions regulating bath tubs and figuratively neutering policemen?
Your logic is flawed to an amazing degree. You chances of dying from a terrorist attack in Indiana? Zilch. Your chance of the same in Yemen? Iraq? Egypt? Africa (anywhere)? Pretty darn good.
Your article gives an unsettling and pessimistic view of the future, but I suspect that it is accurate.
The military-industrial complex and political powers are pushing the world to be endlessly in fear and endlessly spending on ‘defence’. (And never questioning their orders.)
Only informed and dedicated people will be able to tell the lies from the truth and demand sensible action.
What can be done?
It is harder to find peaceful & constructive solutions, than to respond to threats with bigger threats.
But there are always alternatives, if we look for them.
It makes you think.
Thanks Robert.
World War 2 didn’t help the economy. Tom Woods explains it better than I can:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71tPBjrTeJU
Michael Crichton’s book, State of Fear, makes a similar point: that government uses fear to control the populace.
Lets leave it to the artists, music makers and journalists to solve the problems or make the activists aware as they are the only ones with integrity. We sure need to try something new.
After the Berlin wall came down we were all told there’d be a peace dividend. That the military would draw down, we’d mothball or scuttle a few aircraft carrier groups, and get rid of most of the nukes. With almost no debate there was a decision to maintian the same navy we had all throughout the cold war even though no other country has anywhere near the capability of the US. Now we have the developement of drones and other “smart” weapons.
One has to wonder what will be the long term effect of taking our best developers and putting them to work making weapons platforms and spy systems instead of pushing the state of the art in sofware development will be. We already lost a generation of best and brightest software developers to Wall Street (running their flash trading programs). Imagine what else we’ll never see.
War is a racket….
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
“WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.”
Beginning? No, it’s already here.
We started down that road 30 years ago, gained steam throughout the Clinton years, and it came to full fruition thanks to Cheney, Scalia, and the Robertson court. Welcome to the corporate facist republic. The only difference in political parties is that the democrats remove civil liberties for the sake of internal threats (i.e. won’t someone think of the children, because I’m against drugs and drunk driving) and the republicans remove them for the sake of external threats (i.e. Libyan Communist Al Queda Nazi Frogmen from Outer Space).
and we’ll have another 90% of the cyber warforce as hirelings like Snowden, perhaps qualified, perhaps not, all ready to spill their guts at a drop of a pair of panties, or a Roche in the drink, or a guided-or-not sense of duty to a higher power.
why can’t they just let the service academies and idle troops do the heavy lifting, and the beltway bandits just crank out more blockhouses to fill with blade servers?
You might also want to read Bruce Schneier’s recent blog post ( a cross post from the Atlantic ):
https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/08/the_nsa_is_comm.html
I have worked in the Infosec space for over 15 years, and there is a serious sense of panic amongst my international customers in working to relocate their data to “safe havens”. There was always a sense that the Feds, directly and via their proxies such as Equifax and Experian were harvesting some data but not to the extent that is known now.
TIA? remember that?
Sooner or later blowback will occur.
Perhaps when divorce attorneys get access to meta data or Silicon Valley moves to Malaysia.
Or maybe when the choice comes down to having actual troops in uniform or contractors in khakis manning terminals in Bethesda.
My money is in the contractors.
“Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia”
Distasteful as it may be, the military is the driving force behind most if not all of the technology we now enjoy. The airplane was a backyard curiosity until WWI. Who was the very first potential customer the Wrights approached? The U.S. Army. Military rockets gave us the technology and experience for the moonshot. The first job of the earliest digital computers was to compute artillery shell trajectories. The earliest transistors produced by Fairchild Semiconductor, the first Silicon Valley company, were so expensive only the military could afford them. The DARPA road challenge ran for several years before anyone other than sci fi writers thought about self-driving vehicles. Multi-million dollar military drones are currently spawning an entire new civilian drone industry. Development of robotic pack animals are being funded by the military. I predict the current “cyber war” will beget a wealth of as-yet unimagined benefits. And if you don’t beleive there is a real cyber war going on right now, just ask the former employees of the Efficient Services Escrow Group: http://krebsonsecurity.com/2013/08/1-5-million-cyberheist-ruins-escrow-firm/
Thanks, all great points that should be made in any discussion about military spending.
I’m not really comfortable on how Snowden is portrayed in your piece, or many others. He was well aware of the ramifications of his actions, and no one really knows what his motivation was. I think assuming it was for the good of everyone is a little naive. We’re talking about a twenty something year old, who honestly doesn’t really have the experience that makes me feel comfortable with his own actions. How would you feel, if when a leadership structure was faced with needing a decision on a complicated problem, and they turned to the closest convenient twenty something? I know leadership in our upper echelons are not very satisfactory at the moment, but it’s still better than the prisoners guarding the jails.
On the other hand, my cynicism knows no bounds. I think Snowden was set up for this very purpose — to put a face on and justify the present path of cyber warfare. And it’s a surgical strike so far, having only policy and political ramifications. No secrets have been revealed and no agents compromised.
How many successful experienced 50 year olds that you would like to trust are idealistic enough to put their whole life and assets at risk as Snowden has done, for something that doesn’t have at least a potential for personal benefit?
The presidents list of actions to be taken to review and control (ha!) the spying agencies should be taken as a list of reasons to grant Snowden a pardon.
“In a paralyzed Congress, cyber warfare will soon be the only true bipartisan cause even though it shouldn’t be a cause at all.” If it’s bipartisan, that may be because most Americans will support politicians who protect our interests. Being based on fear is not inherently bad, only unwarranted fear. Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get me.
Oh-well, here we go again… great article!
You left out the other part of the speech. Where he warned of the dangers of a scientific-technical elite.
Great article, interesting comments, a couple of thoughts.
First, about the the benefits of military investments in tech, it is hard to say if the money would be there if the military wasn’t involved as it has been a prevailing influence for the last 100 years or so. The 100 years before that though brought tech forward based on different incentives, the automobile, the phonograph, steam engines, cotton gins, the telegraph and the telephone were not driven by military incentives, as far as I know. The pitch for those tools was usually an improvement in the quality of life, not the destruction of one’s enemies.
Ref the cynical idea that Snowden was setup, I don’t know but I wouldn’t be surprised. There is a wealth of historical president for inviting or staging a calculated attack so that a calculated response can be made. Is the world less, um, complicated than it was before? I think not and so one needs to consider what the big picture is and why things happen.
Ref the dangers of a scientific-technical elite, that is already here. There is nothing in science or technology that implies morality or ethics. We hope that those that excel at science and technology have moral and ethical compasses but there have been many questionable decisions made that would seem to argue that there is little place for that in today’s world. More is better and greed is good are what I often see as the motivations for the decisions that make my world less.
Ref the bleakness that is coming up, I concur. Unless, of course, something or someone saves us. Kidding, that is the usual response I hear when this kind of topic is discussed. The usual conclusion is: Someone else needs to do something. I doubt that someone else is going to save us though, we are going to have to save ourselves from ourselves (thank you Pogo). And that starts with activating with the activist group of your choice unless you are content with the direction that we are headed. Until we reach the tipping point where government no longer derives its power from the citizenry, and maybe even a little past that point if it is a precarious tipping, we are the its source of power and we need to exercise it now. In all things that the government does, it is allegedly acting in our behalf for our benefit as a proxy for us. The only way to remove that argument that this is for our own good is to tell it that we disagree with its course, with its actions, and that it must behave differently.
You are not remembering your history. The military drive behind technology goes back as far as Archimedes. Which do you think came first, the bronze statue, or the bronze sword? Food supply, materials, transportation, communication, whatever the civilian world has needed, the military needed it first, and was willing to pay a premium price for it. I wonder if we ever do run out of things to fight about, if there will be a precipitous drop in innovation.
What amazes me is that the populace can actually be fearful of terrorists. We faced complete thermonuclear extinction for about half a century, and we are afraid of what we face now??? It doesn’t make sense. I’ve often thought that if a president wanted to extend a lot of lives, he/she would say, “eat wisely, exercise, wear sunscreen and seat belts”. Heart disease and cancer will get most of us.
The other thing I find amazing is that the oath that everyone involved takes says they will defend the constitution, and doesn’t directly mention the people. Yet all the participants are prepared to play fast and loose with the constitution, with the excuse they are defending the people. Lots of tinpot dictatorships have had great constitutions, that those in power ignore. I don’t understand why the players lack the backbone to actually defend the constitution.
Few behind the firewall have learned that the 39th US president said that it looks like we have a suspension of American democracy:
https://www.salon.com/2013/07/18/jimmy_carter_us_has_no_functioning_democracy_partner/
“But now the trends that created the Department of Homeland Security and the Patriot Act have somewhat run their courses. Bin Laden is dead…If the intelligence community didn’t have Edward Snowden they would have had to invent him”
Sounds like someone is watching Zeitgeist videos. James Corbett sums up the Bin Laden decade:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98
“Fifty-two years ago, three days before he left office ”
JFK’s Secret Societies Speech touches on this subject. JFK’s revenge describes how the Zapruder film was altered.
This will all be moot once we take a solar coronal mass discharge straight to the gut.
Mr Eisenhower started it, then proceeded to cover his back. Such is the win-win scenario. The slippery slope is always visible and down, is its inevitability. Few wo/men of power change their world for the better. Eisenhower was not one of them.
Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman who investigated the Challenger Shuttle disaster, wrote:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is,it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment,it’s wrong.”
Jonathan Cole has created a series of videos of chemistry and physics of the WTC collapses:
http://911speakout.org/?page_id=10
There is no single “official account” of how the buildings came down. There is a bewildering array of pronouncements that contradict each other and the evidence. Any theory that does not match experiment is wrong. It doesn’t matter what the computer models predict, how much funding is behind it, what the experts say, or what everyone “thinks”. Nothing can fool the laws of physics.
Nobody witnessed Dr Judy Wood’s energy weapons. There was video evidence of explosives and firefighters witnessed explosives:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG6XORwlJ0Y
Way to misunderstand Feynman there. Notice, the buildings fell down. It is not theoretical that the buildings fell down, they fell down.
Yes, buildings 1 and 2 fell down. The question is, did they fall down due to the sideways force and subsequent fire from the crashing airplanes. Or did they fall down due to the activation of a series of previously placed explosive charges?
Since building 7 was publically acknowledged to have been deliberated collapsed, there is no question about it. Building 7 fell because of previously placed explosive charges that were activated in order to “pull” the building.
… deliberately collapsed, …
Pull the building, meant pull the people out of the building.
But of course, George Bush’s brother was in charge of security for the building, and he probably placed the bombs personally.
“Then came 9-11, al-qaeda, and its suicide bombers. . .”
Bob, I am surprised. Obviously you have not heard of or at least bothered to get Dr Judy Wood’s book, her inquiry into 9/11, “Where Did the Towers Go?”
Whatever is ones stand, the book should be read. Anyone who still accepts that two planes can take down two immense towers that were build to withstand a much larger collision (seven buildings in total were destroyed), cut out circular holes in glass without the usual cracks to the rest of each window, rust out cars blocks away (melt or ‘make disappear’ automobile engines and twist thick metal support, make buildings evaporate above firefighters, yet throughout all this leave very little rubble behind and do no damage below ground level, then there should be little fear that her book will change one’s mind. In fact, it should reinforce the ‘facts’ and give the believer ammunition to argue with anyone who doesn’t believe the official story.
So is your point that 9-11 was a government plot?
Can we get back to the erosion of freedoms since 9/11?
Interesting point about Snowden being a ‘set up’.
If you were to believe the media, he’s a traitor (going to HK and Russia didn’t help)
but the very real questions about the NSA monitoring seems to have been back burnered.
Whee is the national discussion on this?
> This […] was unlike any other address by Eisenhower
I’d disagree with that – look at one of his first speeches, April 1953 – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech#The_speech
“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.”
You can tell it’s the same guy all right!
It struck me while reading both speeches: Eisenhower was a popular Republican, a real war hero, patriotic, as red-blooded as they come. Some of today’s loudest voices on the political right grew up during or not long after his time, and they would have had his example to look to for what the GOP stood for.
And yet today, if Obama dared mention some of these sentiments, they’d call him a socialist. Well, even more often, anyway.
Both democrats and republicans are opposed to unnecessary spending, whether for the military or social causes. The disagreement is about what is necessary. Eisenhower was right in comparing the cost of weapons to schools. Someone may be considered a socialist in so far as he wants no limit to government spending in general. It doesn’t matter whether the money comes from taxes or the printing press; it doesn’t matter if it purchases nothing at all as long as it redistributes wealth from productive to nonproductive sectors like government bureaucracy. Eisenhower was a Republican not because he wanted to shift federal spending from weapons to schools but because he wanted less federal control so that more power and money would be in the hands of the people to choose how to best allocate resources based on a free market.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.
A more apt propaganda statement would be, “911 was a terrorist event that justified the war on terror and the loss of certain freedoms.”
The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
That statement never seems to go out of relevancy. More people die from automobile accidents in a year than died on 9/11. In fact 40,000 people die each year for lack of health insurance. We do nothing about these things. Yet we’ve spent trillions on our reaction to 9/11. It almost looks like a con job, put up by the military and intellegence complex to sell contracts. None of the terror in our era compares to what people in England faced in 1940. They’d laugh in our face over our reaction to terror.
Out of fear we are transforming ourselves into something pathetic.
Look, freedom is not an easy, comfortable road to choose. We’ve just had it relatively easy for several generations. It takes courage, individual and collective, to be a free society.
You can’t be the land of the free if you are not the home of the brave.
It’s not necessarily the government’s job to protect us from all forms of harm. The primary job of the Federal government is to protect us from foreign invaders. Sure, we can ask more of it, but it will only turn around and demand we pay more through increased taxes and inflation.
Al qaeda changed the game, bringing the action home to America for the first time since Lincoln.
Picking a nit perhaps, but you’re overlooking a spasm of domestic terrorism that directly fed the early stages of a massive infrastructure for spying on Americans: a few anarchist bombs combined with some labor unrest (and some immigrants with funny names) were enough to set off the Palmer raids, and the burgeoning FBI under Palmer’s understudy J. Edgar, who cast a long shadow over the 20th century.
More broadly, there’s plenty of examples of domestic terrorism between Lincoln and Sacco & Vanzetti, not least the KKK.
Eisenhower had 2922 days (longer than WWII) to do something and he left it to his third last day – no great commander.
J Edgar looked into the bedrooms of the powerful but refused to see teamster or mafia crimes. He did it to protect his own Empire. 9/11 showed that intelligence and pre-warnings are not digested because one does not understand the threat.
What the military-industrial complex does is feed like a leach or parasite on the body politic to keep itself alive.
The flight school instructors and the boat owner – the law abiding citizens discovered the culprits – the military-industrial complex or FBI or anyone else in the system FAILED even with their trillions spent but they are sure trigger happy.
Many years ago I sent to Bush43 an email saying the best memorial to 9/11 would be a virtual museum just as the passengers in Flight 43 (?) and the shoe bomber took action to preserve themselves or further damage. It is the very core of the USA constitution and Freedom. You have to depend on your neighbor to protect oneself and that story reiterated will keep most of a society safe and lawabiding.
JFK got more intelligence from the Peace Corps than a billion analysts talking to clones of themselves in some other country.
The worst part of the FBI or NSC or any other organization is that they say “Trust me I want to protect you but you must change you ways and do what I say” It is exactly what the Dictatorship of Proletariat is.
And then they all need their empire necessary and protected as did J Edgar but YOUR death is collateral damage.
I will add that Dictatorship of Proletariat is rampant in USA — see Detroit, California, Illinois or Texas. But that is another story that will destroy USA as easily as terrorists. Ha ha ha! and you can’t see the danger!
There is evidence that Ike regretted succumbing to the Military Industrial complex (MIC) and thus the warning but too late to fight it himself – a cop out – hence his ineffectualness.
JFK thought the MIC everyday. There is a lot of evidence that MIC were implicated in his death and that MIC destroyed evidence. JFK witnessed men under his command die and thus knew the loss.
LBJ embraced the MIC to have a quick success in Vietnam. He became disillusioned when ‘Escalating’ Westmoreland keep demanding more men and money. I can see him asking straight faced “Give me a billion men and a trillion dollars and we’ll win”! And the MIC were happy.
The MIC rot set in with the totally criminal Nixon administration – was there a single law abiding executive in Tricky’s admin.
And every other administration followed the MIC command. So much so that brain dead Obama follows every military mantra and also every economic mantra.
“Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry…”
Some of the comments here, and most of what I see personally and on the news demonstrate that the citizenry is anything but alert – other than to TMZ and Oprah, et al – and far from knowledgeable.
[…] me recordó un artículo de Cringley que leí en estos días en el que avisora la nueva amenaza […]
Did fringe NSA stuff in the Navy in the ’70’s, did CISSP in the ’00s, you are way late and a screaming optimist. You miss the logic game: Aristotle postulated that you cannot prove a negative – that something does not exist, since your universe of proofs is necessarily limited. Among other things it’s why we have the burden of proof on the prosecution; you don’t have to prove innocence or non-action, they have an affirmative requirement to prove you did an action. The contractors in infosec have reversed that: you need to prove you have not been hacked, and since the hackers are so clever, you can never prove that you have not been hacked. Ergo, you need MORE SECURITY. Bruce Schneier has all this dialed in, just call him and get permission to link to his site.
[…] Retrieved from https://www.cringely.com/2013/08/14/eisenhower-snowden-and-the-military-industrial-complex/ […]