Eisenhower and the Complex

I'm reading Dave Winer's blog today at Scripting News, "Obama does mean change, here's why". He writes "There are truths to the way our country works that are never talked about on the national stage. Change is possible at that level, but those industries will still have a seat at the table when Obama is President. Eisenhower warned of it in his farewell speech. It's serious stuff. Bush gave into these people because he is one of them. His VP is a defense contractor."

So I had a look at Ike's farewell speech. Here is the relevant text:

"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."

And a bit later on:

"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."

It's scary to think how prescient he was. It's also scary that our current President is completely under the control of this complex (as have been previous Presidents, no doubt).

Winer writes "We know at least that Obama is not one of them. Change? Big change."

I hope he is right. But the influence of the complex will always be there, as long as people continue to have wars. As they will.