Clark-fans: Tell us your views on the military-industrial complex..

[lostnfound]

By 'military industrial complex', I am not talking about the soldiers -- who should be treated very well, of course, and respected -- but rather, the profit-and-power structures which underlie the war machine and the weapons industry -- like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, UT Sikorsky, Carlyle, etc. and related industries who stand to benefit.

Do you see the MIC as a serious problem, or any problem at all? (If not, do you think that Ike was wrong to warn us of it?)

If you do see it as a serious problem, what will it take to make a change?

I'm not asking about Wesley Clark the candidate; I'm wondering whether you Clark-fans see this issue (the MIC) much differently than some of the others here.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

1. Let's ask fans of other candidates - the "industrial" side

Clark being a general doesn't make him any more MIC than the businessmen and lawyers and professional politicians that are the other candidates.

[lostnfound]

2. I'm not ASKING about Clark

I KNOW that. Ike is the one that warned us about it right? And inside knowledge can be very helpful.

I really want to understand how Clark fans see the issue. There's a number of possibilities --
1) You reject the whole notion that there ever was such a thing. (Ike was wrong.)
2) You believe that the MIC exists but has minimal influence on foreign policy.
3) You believe that the MIC is beneficial to American interests and eventually brings positive things (wealth, power) to the US as a whole.
4) You believe that the MIC is a problem but not a serious problem, just part of life as it exists today.
5) You believe that the MIC is a serious problem and a general is just what we need to fix it.

[bigtree]

4. Gen. Clark talks about making large investments in Homeland security

I hope he means firefighters and such and not more boondoggles for Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman, Boeing, Raytheon...

[carpetbagger]

26. He's largely talking about hiring and training people.

Expansion of the Coast Guard and Customs Service, training for local public safety types (police, fire, ambulance).

[eleny]

5. #5....

let's make that "i hope he can make a dent to fix it". after all, he doesn't walk on water, multiply loaves 'n fishes nor convert water into wine. hopefully, if he gets elected, we can all help him make a difference. given his stand on using force, it's a start.

thanks for asking!

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

10. The industrial part is the problem

It's the corporations that are the problem. The military does what they are told to by the civilian leadership, and the civilian leadership gets paid for by the corporations.

Did the military ask to invade Iraq? No, the oil companies did, and all the other companies that are going to benefit from the privization of Iraq.

In some countries, the military is a threat to the civilian government, in the US, that is not the case (I'm excluding the CIA from the military in this case).

[roughsatori]

3. Kick

:kick:

[wuushew]

6. I believe this country has far too many guns and far too little butter

n/t

[Julien Sorel]

7. I love it!

The bigger the better! That military-industrial complex can't get big and powerful enough for me!

Some people might be ashamed of the Military-Industrial Complex, but I'm proud of it! And I'm also proud that I stopped beating my wife!

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm trying to negotiate a big block buy order for some Northrop Grumman stock before the market closes on me!

[lostnfound]

8. So BillyB, I guess ...

it's just an issue you don't take seriously then?

Too bad, because I was really looking forward to your answer in particular.

[Pontus]

15. Clark is a Reaganite, pro-Bush DemoRep!

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

Clark on President George Bush: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

Clark on American military involvement overseas:

"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?"

"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

"During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there.""

http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.htm

[sangh0]

20. Thanks

for letting us all know your source.

[leesa]

37. The cold war was the same scam as the war on terrorism and the

war on drugs. Purely an invention of the military-industrial complex to make mega-bucks selling weapons. How many people died for this nonsense?

[RichM]

23. Very telling that Billy would refuse to respond to the question.

The question is excellent, wholly legitimate, and respectfully offered to the forum. Yet BillyBunter, the 24 hour-a-day Clark propagandist, refuses to take it seriously. You really have to ask yourself, why might that be?

His lame attempt at sarcastic humor tries to imply that the question itself is illegitimate; that the fault lies with the person who asked it. This approach to quashing criticism is something we also see in the Bushites. It's no accident that Billy resorts to it.

Why don't you try to answer again, Billy? Spare us your wit this time, and just respond to the question, in the same intelligent fashion in which it was posed.

[returnable]

9. As a Clark supporter

I see the MIC as a serious problem, yes.

What to do about it? I really have no idea. I haven't seen anyone offer up any serious nuts'n'bolts-type solutions.

Mostly what I read comes back to budget cuts/contract re-evaluations and that seems like a logical first step to me.

[DemExpat]

14. I agree.....

Perhaps Clark supporters feel he'd be another Ike in recognizing the dangers with inside knowledge.

DemEx

[WesWing2004]

11. problem

I think it is a serious conflict of interest for the govt. to be awarding no-bid contracts to people like Defibrillator Dick's Halliburton, and RBK. Who knows what the axis of evil at 1600 Penna did in Aug. 2001 to *get the party started?*

Personally I am against anything nuclear on this planet. Weapons, reactors, etc. I just wish we could stop the madness.

Hey, if I knew what to do to change it, I'd be running for prez, right?

I just feel a whole lot better having someone in the WH who knows what goes on inside that five-sided building.

[WilliamPitt]

12. I think it is a huge problem

I think we have, at least since 1945, armed various parts of the planet, had them go fight a war somewhere, and then we've figured out a way to justify our use of force against them somewhere down the line. Afghanistan, September 11 and Saddam Hussein are prime examples of this, but there are many others.

The MIC exists to serve itself. Not peace, not prosperity, not freedom, but itself. It is a self-perpetuating machine, a perfect circle.

But I am also an asshole who thinks that no candidate in 2004 can do much of anything about this.

I remember John F. Kennedy going to war against his own Joint Chiefs to keep the world from blowing up. Here was a President with very little political experience, from the liesure class, who was also an officer and a veteran. He somehow managed to keep those maniacs mostly under control until someone blew his brains out.

I don't think you'll find many people here who will disagree with the premise that the MIC is a death machine. The question becomes: What to do? How can we throw sand in these gears? I'd be very interested in pragmatic, effective, real-world solutions to the problem, because it is a problem, and one that will not be solved any time soon.

[IrateCitizen]

16. Want to disband it? Here's a few ideas...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=394120

But you may not find it all particularly encouraging. Like you said, Will -- "it is a problem, and one that will not be solved any time soon."

Let me know what you think.

[WilliamPitt]

17. That's a gigantor thread

Can you give me the high points? I have to go to Chapel hill in a little while.

[IrateCitizen]

19. I'll try -- at least from my input on it

:D

Basically, the MIC is a result of perceptions that exist in our society. The American society is one that is inherently based on selfishness and exploitation, whether we like to admit it or not. Just think of how much more occupations that create wealth are lauded than those that serve the greater good of society. We live in a world in which we are conditioned to be cynical and distrustful of those around us, to "take what we can get for ourselves", that happiness is only a major item purchase away.

The MIC is nothing less than an extension of this phenomenon. As GHW Bush famously said, "The American way of life is non-negotiable." But the American way of life has made us disconnected from those around us and increasingly unhappy. But the MIC helps reinforce the American way of life, because without it, that wasteful, consumerist way of life would be completely unsustainable.

So, how do you defeat the MIC? By discrediting the myth that the consumerist, selfish, material-driven American way of life is the true path to happiness.

What we need in this country, more than anything, is a movement to introduce a true sense of community and cooperation into our lives. This is a movement that will start small -- with small groups in communities. But from these small groups, we can create what I call "concentric circles of caring", or CCC's. As more people learn the value of embracing community, of trusting each other and working together, of displaying genuine compassion for one another -- then the ethos of selfishness will gradually melt away, as people realize that their self-interest is better served by this new ethos.

Of course, what we are talking about is a paradigm shift that will literally take generations to accomplish. But if we set about it, then we will not need to dismantle the military-industrial complex. It will simply wither and blow away like dust in the wind.

Like I said, it may not be quite the answer you want to hear -- but it is the one way to really change things. Anything else -- trying to dismantle it without changing the base perceptions of our society -- would only be a temporary fix.

[bigtree]

21. This Bush brought a slew of Military Industrial Warriors in with him

Rooting them out would be a start. Many are executive appointed to avoid congressional scrutiny. The numbers and the connections are astounding.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. My Reply Is There's Not A Dimes Worth of Substantive Difference

between Mr.'s Gephardt, Dean, Clark, Edwards, Lieberman,Kerry, and Graham on defense/foreign policy issues...

They all want to leave the Pentagon budgest essentially as is and none of them are seriously talking about bringing our young men and women home from the seventy ,odd countries they are currently serving in....

The difference between those candidates remind me of a mall test comparing Pepsi and Coke...

DK, AS, and to a smaller extent CMB offer a fundamentally different path....


To suggest the above is incorrect is to indulge in political fantasy.... Worse it's political infantilism....

[RichM]

24. Exactly right.

[arendt]

25. I think your answer is correct, but...

Sometimes I think the liberal Dems are like the Kevin
Costner character in "Tin Cup". They want the hole-
in-one, and they are willing to lose not only the tournament,
but the chance to play in next year's tournament, in order
to try for that hole-in-one.

Yes, it is true that the candidates are BSing about this.
But, relying on DK, AS, or CMB as the Democratic nominee
would be a Hail Mary pass that would make William Jennings
Bryant's second run look like a wise decision.

Its the bottom of the ninth, with two out and we are five runs
behind. Stop swinging for the fences. You can't win that way.

</cheesy sports metaphors>

We need to win and build a base. We need to get back disenchanted
Reagan Democrats. We need to wake people up that the economy
does well under Democrats and that the GOP are a pack of
crooks.

I think that DK, AS, and CMB are performing valuable service
for the Democratic Party. They are expressing, and thereby
legitimizing core Democratic values. They are forcing the DLC
crowd (Gephardt, Kerry, Edwards, and Clark; forget Loserman)
to the left. But they are not bringing back Reagan Democrats.

So, please, hold your nose and vote for someone who isn't wearing
a homing beacon for every piece of nasty shit the GOP can sling.
Whoever wins can appoint DK, AS, and CMB to posts in the
Administration. I think of those three as auditioning for those posts.

----

To speak to the MIC question...

Yes, the MIC (and now the prisons, run by the ex-spooks at
Wackenhut) is a cancer on America. The long term drain over
50 years on our economy has just about killed us, both financially
and morally. So, I'm against it continuing in its current bloated,
self-serving form. The question is how to change it, and the
answer when doing something this big is "gradualism". You
can't just slam on the brakes; it will cause a smash-up.

Now, I admit to having formed a (changable) preference for Dean.
I went to an event and stood 10 feet away and listened to how he
answered a question about the Pentagon budget.

His answer was that, while he would leave the budget alone, he
would spend it differently. First, he would raise the pay of the troops.
He said it was a disgrace that 30% of the troops are on food stamps.
Now, I don't have a number, but I would guess that at 1 Million
soldiers, a 20,000 pay raise would cost $20 Billion per year. That
is doable. Then they need to pay for better schools near military
bases, better health care (especially mental health after this rotten
war - see Dean's mental health position paper). They need to do
something about the absolutely horrible environmental pollution
record of the MIC. Start with Hanford Reservation, Rocky Flats,
and the assembly company in Amarillo? Texas. You could easily
spend $100 Billion cleaning up those messes. I believe he wants
to kill Star Wars 2 and some other boondoggles.

Finally, do you really want to just send the troops home instantly?
Look at how well that worked in Iraq. If we just fold the Army, we
add to the unemployment rate. Also, even if we decided to leave
the 70-odd countries right now, how long would it take to extricate
ourselves? (Granted that we look like shit on the world stage, and
most places want us to go.) Who plans how we get out? How much
does that cost? How long does that take?

So, Dean's position may be BS. But is half-way thought-through BS.
It is gradualism. But, gradualism is a better choice than revolution.
Do you have an opinion?

arendt

On edit - fix typos

[arendt]

28. More places to reallocate Pentagon $

We are bashing Bush for not funding "first responders" and
cargo container security.

Paying Federal dollars for these unfunded mandates would
help ease the state budget crises. Unless you say that we
should just cancel increased Civil Defense (I hate the Nazi
phrase Homeland Security. If CD was good enough for the
WW2 veterans, its good enough for me.)

arendt

[arendt]

29. Oh, and give the VA some decent funding too! n/t

n/t

[arendt]

30. Think of the MIC as a toxic waste dump. It needs remediation...

not abandonment.

What do you think of that approach? Too negative for Joe
Six Pack?

arendt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

31. I'm Not Suggesting You Vote For Anybody

I'm just suggesring you vote with your eyes wide open....


I was offering a diagnosis.... Not a prescription....


My buddy, Rich M. embraces my diagnosis but our prescriptions differ....

I call myself at times a welfare state liberal, a traditional liberal, a center leftist...

There are alot of things I want to change about our system but my conservative temperament makes me wary of too much change...

I just get frustrated when folks act like their candidate has reinvented politics when all they have done is put a new face on the shticks that have been used so many time before....

One guy said that Dean was going to reign in corporate power and restore democracy...

Nothing against Dean in particular...

But is he going to put a check on Microsoft and Wal Mart and let me vote on the great issues of the day from my living room...

Gimme a break.....

As I said in my previous post there ain't a dimes worth of difference between Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Lieberman, Edwards, Clark , and Graham on the great issues of our day....

The differences between these gentlemen are stylistic in nature and therefore superfluous....

I like Kerry, Edwards, and Clark cuz I think they have the best chance of beating Bush not because I think they offer a different path from the other mainstream Democratic candidates....

Also, I like John Edwards Because I think he is a gentleman in the best sense of the word...

[arendt]

39. neither did I. How about some responses to my suggestions about MIC?

I didn't tell you or anyone who to vote for. And, I did not knock
ANY of the candidates. I said that I thought some were better
than others and that my mind was "changable".

This thread was started on the basis of MIC. I gave a lot of
points about MIC. How about addressing some of them instead
of the endless candidtate-puffing and bashing?

We've got to have someone to beat Bush. Its going to be one
of these ten people. Let's try to figure out a good set of answers
on MIC for whoever wins the nomination.

arendt

[KittyWampus]

32. You Are So Wrong & Arrogant But Mainly WRONG

Clark spoke of cutting the Pentagon budget to pay for Health care...

But go ahead and continue on in your bubble.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

36. It Wasn't A Knock On Clark

If you read all my posts including some of the posts in this thread you would see I am sympathetic to a Clark candidacy....

My point is that Clark falls squarely in the Democratic tradition on defense and foreign policy issues.... They all are Wilsonian internationalists.....

They all have supported every post Viet Nam engagement* except for Gulf War 2 though Gep and Kerry interestingly enough opposed Gulf War 1...

For the record I supported most of them too with the exception of Grenada and Panama..

If Clark wants to cut the budget I applaud him but I don't see him advocating a paradigm shift nor do I see the other mainstream candidates advocating one either....


*There have been so many engagements that there were small difference but I don't have the time nor inclination to enumerate them all...

[ShaneGR]

18. I see it the same way you do, BUT about Clark

Just because he's a General does not mean he doesn't see it the same way. For example, Eisenhower was one of the first people to warn about it.

AND, keep in mind that during last nights 'debate' Clark clearly said he would be willing to cut the Pentagon budget.

[neuvocat]

22. Don't trust it,

just like General Eisenhower said.

[carpetbagger]

27. When he's advocated in the past, it's usually been for troops.

Salary, housing, health, working conditions, that kind of stuff.

In his book, he covers technology advances, specifically the improvement in precision guidance for bombs and missiles, which I think many people feel to be an improvement (just ask anyone who survived WWII in London or Dresden), but "modern war" in his opinion is not driven so much be hardware technology as by changing enemies, goals, and tactics.

[KittyWampus]

33. The MIC Needs To Be Defunded

Just as Clark suggested.

General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's
tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.

Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more
familiar with — the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to
develop want."

[Q]

34. The military/corporate complex..

...are little more than meaningless words to a country that can't get upset over stolen elections or unanswered questions about 9-11.

- It's here to stay...especially when 'terrorism', shadow governments and false patriotism are used to add another layer of secrecy and shave away another layer of accountability.

- It doesn't help that the New Democrats think blind patriotism is the answer.

[Pepperbelly]

38. Why do you always ...

want to assert what others think? Is it because that without setting up that strawman the same way Limbaugh does, it isn't so easy to score points?

Don't tell me what I think nor argue against what you assert that I might think. It is both childish and rhetorically invalid.

[Pepperbelly]

35. What is it that you want to know our views on?

That is a very broad topic.

I think that the DOD could be cut by 15% to 25%.

Next generation ships, planes, tanks, and guns are unnecessary. There is no power on earth whose research and engineering can, in the next 20 years, match what we have in the arsenal right now. There is no air force extant against whom we cannot get and maintain air superiority. There is no navy in the world that challenges us. Our combat troops are second to none. Next gen stuff procurement is silly now except maybe for prototypes ... like the Long Beach class of crusier was a prototype that they didn't continue with.

If new development and procurment is needed in the future, we could probably skip the next gen technology altogether and go a step past that IF additional technology is needed at all.

The theory behind the military's procurement notions is the refusal to allow something that could be done to remain undone. IOW, if there is a sexier way of doing avionics or targeting or whatever, the pentagon culture decrees that it should therefore be done. Nonsense.

The companies listed are going to do as much as they can to generate the wants for their goods in the Pentagon. They are also going to do as much as they can to grab as many r&d projects as possible because (sweet)those are generally on a cost plus basis and therefore sheer momey-makers.

I think that both the military and the industries that supply them should be both nurtured AND watched carefully.