MILITARY-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX: EISENHOWER'S UNSOLVED PROBLEM by )/lrS THOMAS JENKINS BADGER Bo A., George Washington University., 1949 A MASTER'S THESIS submitted fn pa 1 ful 111b nt of the .'_-. -.- ... — -\-C MASTER OF ARTS Department of Political Science KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 1965 Approved by: ~ Major Professor XOOl 1105 6<3 ACKHQWLEOGEMENT TO: Dr. Louis Douglas for suggesting the subject, offering continuous encouragement and valuable advice, and insisting upon a measure of scholar- ship. Or. Robin Higham for reading the manuscript, professional advice and suggestions. Dr. Joseph Hajda, who as the Major Professor, was responsible for the thesis and who tirelessly read and reread drafts, and who patiently pointed out weaknesses needing amplification, correction, or deletion. It Is not Intended to Indicate that these gentlemen concur with the entire thesis. They don't. The errors and misconceptions In the thesis are mine as well as the conclusions but without their assistance the thesis would be unacceptable as a scholarly work. If I could have followed their advice more Intelligently the thesis would be considerably Improved, but whatever merit this work may have the credit belongs to them. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION of the United One hundred and sixty-eight years ago, the first President had served so States presented his farewell address to the country which he from a divided well and which he, as much as any other person, had changed Washington's group of self-oriented states Into a cohesive nation. George permanent alliances principal advice to this young nation was to stay clear of west to settle} with foreign nations. With a vast and growing territory to the ocean protecting her with an ocean protecting her eastern shore, and another one short western shorej with a peaceful neighbor to the north except for with a much weaker interlude of a few years, culminating in the War of 1812 j conquest additional land neighbor to the south who would be forced to cede by on the most power- for settlement to the west} with a foreign policy relying a favorable balance of ful navy In the world, that of Great Britain, with found it to her best power in Europe—the United States for over a century A small group of interest to follow her first President's sage advice. nostalgic citizens believe It still to be the best policy. adequate protection. The Atlantic and the Pacific Oceans no longer offer protective importance. Geographic distance between potential enemies has lost its thermonuclear warheads can Salvos of intercontinental supersonic missiles with British Navy no longer destroy the largest cities in a matter of minutes. The of the United States protects the United States} rather the nuclear missiles transformed the political now protect Great Britain. Two superpowers have uncommitted nations world. Each of them is seeking to convince the neutral and the best hope for that Its way of life, economically and politically, offers each individual nation, as well as the entire world. The United States, as one of these two leaders, now Instead of avoiding alliances. Is 1n competition with the U.S.S.R., the other leader, spending billions of dollars annually to obtain additional allies and to bind her existing allies by new means and methods into stronger and more permanent alliances—economic, political and military. The United States continues to support the United Nations, in which all nations are potential members, hoping that this world organization would eventually produce, as was hopefully predicted by its most ardent founders, a world of peace governed by law with justice. The failure of the United Nations to produce effective aggrements or to fulfill its expected role made It necessary for the United States to shift its foreign policy from primary reliance on the United Nations to an interlocking system of alliances and 1 multilateral treaties encircling the "Iron and Bamboo Curtains". United States maintains a preeminent position In all these alliances. With planes traveling at 2000 miles per hour connecting world capitals in hours instead of days} with Instantaneous telephone and telegraph communica- tions between all countries} with basic diplomacy changed to special meetings including special emissaries and even heads of state) with a world-wide inter- locking economic structure) and, above all, with soma nations shifting their emphasis between the two poles for political or economic advantage; with other 'united States is a member of OAS (Organization of American States) which includes all Central and South American states except Cuba) NATO (North Atlan- tic Treaty Organization) consisting of United States, United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Canada, Italy, Belgiun, Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Portugal, Luxembourg, Greece, Turkey; SEATO (South East Asia Treaty Organization) consisting of United States, United Kingdom, France, New Zealand, Australia, Thailand, Pakistan, Philippines; and CENTO (Central Treaty Organization) consisting of United Kingdom, Turkey, Pakistan, Iran with the United States pledged to co- operate for military defense. Bilateral treaties exist between United States and Japan, United States and South Korea, United States and Taiwan, United States and Philippines, United States and Australia and New Zealand. nations fostering alternatives to the policies of the United States and the Soviet Union, as France and China are doing; with still others creating special groupings such as the neutralist or African nations are doing to enhance their own special influence.—It remains increasingly impossible for any nation to live in isolation or even exist as a selfsufficient nation. Under these conditions, which are the result of changes vast and unforeseen by the "founding fathers", another loved and respected President gave his farewell address to the citizens of the United States. The speech was directed to the citizens of the United States, but its background and impli- cations were dictated by the changes in world relationships. Sherman Adams says President Elsenhower was the greatest influence for peace in the world. President Eisenhower hoped that furtherance of world peace would determine his eventual place In history; consequently his greatest disappointment was that he could not say after eight years in office that permanent peace with justice was in sight. Nevertheless he felt that his greatest achievement was the avoidance of war in a hopelessly divided world, when, as he said, any display of weakness, moral or physical, could have meant the possible spread of nuclear war.' But above all, he seemed to think that his efforts in keeping the peace had also created a domestic problem that threatened the Individual liberties of Americans as well as the nation's traditional democratic processes. In his farewell address he saidt 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 ... Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and 2 .Sherman Adams, First Hand Report, p. 462. 3 New York Tiroes, January VJ, i95T, p. 1. as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk enter* gency 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 American experience. The total influence- economic, political, even spiritual—is felt in every city, every State- house, »/wy office of the Federal Government. We recognize the impera- tive 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 liber- ties 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. President Elsenhower was not the first to cite the danger of the growing military-industrial complex caused by the emphasis on military security. In 1947 Hanson Baldwin warned of "the militarization of our Government and of the 6 American state of mind."5 H. D. Lasswell In 1950 and Associate Justice William 0. Douglas'' in 1952, among many other serious and respected authors, wrote critically on various aspects of the military-industrial complex which was new to the United States and brought on by World War II but con- tinued since then, even growing and consolidating its position in American x society because of the continuation of the "cold war". Following the Presl- Sublic Papers of The President of the United States, Dwiqht D. Eisenhower. 1960-19&1, P. 1037. See Appendix I for entire speech. SHanson Baldwin, "The Military Move In," Harper's Magazine, December, 1947, p. 481. °Harold D. Lasswell, National Security and Individual Freedom , New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1950. 'William 0. Douglas "Should We Fear The Military?" Look Magazine, March 11, 1952, p. 34. dent's speech there appeared among commentators, scholars, legislators, and writers of all types a growing number who wrote even more critically of military and Industrial leaders. There is substantial evidence of an In- creasing concern among thoughtful people that the effects of the military- Industrial complex are detrimental, if not actually changing or destroying the traditional American freedoms of our democratic society.