US rushin' to condemn arms broker for Syria

Russian arms to Syria concern Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Tuesday said Russia's shipment of attack helicopters to Syria "will escalate the conflict dramatically."

"We have confronted the Russians about stopping their continued arms shipments to Syria," she said at the Brookings Institution in Washington. "We are concerned about the latest information we have that there are attack helicopters on the way from Russia to Syria, which will escalate the conflict quite dramatically."

Clinton said the ever-increasing amount of weapons in Syria raise the likelihood of civil war.

Read more at link above.

Russian arms dealer sends missile defence systems to Syria

A Russian arms dealer has said his company is shipping missile defence systems to Syria that could be used to combat international intervention in the country.

Anatoly Isaykin, the general director of Rosoboronexport, said the advanced defensive missile systems could be used to shoot down planes or sink ships.

The accusation by Hillary Clinton prompted Russia to accuse the US of hypocrisy over military equipment, including jet engines and patrol boats that were sold to Bahrain despite civil unrest in the Arab state.

Russian Defense Giant Receives $377M in U.S. Small Minority-Owned Business Contracts, According to the American Small Business League

Over $375 million in U.S. funds meant for minority-owned small businesses have been awarded to Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-owned arms trading company-- the company currently raising headlines for its role as lead arms supplier to Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

The U.S. Army awarded the no-bid contracts to Rosoboronexport in May 2011 to supply the Afghan military with 21 Mi-17 helicopters.

Rosoboronexport is Russia's leading international arms dealer but its $377 million Army contracts were originally entered into the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) as awards to a small minority-owned business and are currently labeled as contract awards to a minority-owned business.

In 2008, President Obama promised to end these abuses by issuing the statement, "It is time to end the diversion of federal small business contracts to corporate giants."

Hey, nothing hypocritical about buying arms from brokers whilst condemning others for the same thing, so long a small business gets a piece of that business.

Senator Blocks Army's Weapons Buyer Over Russian Arms to Syria

Cornyn is leading a Senate effort pressuring the Department of Defense to stop doing business with Rosoboronexport, Russia's state-run arms trader. The Army has a $375 million, no-bid contract with the company to buy 21 Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters for Afghanistan's air force that it says only Rosoboronexport can provide.

"The DoD and the Army have refused to look for alternatives, even as Rosoboronexport continues to arm the Assad regime," Cornyn said in an e-mailed statement. "The DoD and the Army must end their practice of handing no-bid contracts to this problematic Russian broker and instead conduct full and open competition for all future Mi-17 procurement."

Billion-Dollar Deal with Russian Firm Sets Off Contracting Alarm

Day by day, Bashar al-Assad's brutal Syrian regime continues to crack down on its own civilian population. So when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused Russia this week of providing attack helicopters to the Syrian government, most Americans were rightly outraged. But how would Americans feel if they knew nearly a billion taxpayer dollars were supporting the Russian arms broker at the center of the controversy? Unfortunately, that may very well be the case.

A major Russian state-owned arms broker, Rosoboronexport, responsible for roughly 80 to 90 percent of the country’s foreign arms sales, is coming under attack from a group of Senators after winning a nearly $1 billion, sole-source contract from the Department of Defense (DoD) in 2011 to provide Afghanistan with non-attack Mi-17 helicopters.

Rosoboronexport previously was sanctioned by the U.S. government from August 2006 through May 2010 for aiding Iran’s nuclear program. Since sanctions were lifted, Rosoboronexport has also provided billions of dollars of lethal aircraft and other weapons to the Syrian government, which may have deployed them in killing thousands of civilians.

While advocacy groups have urged Congress to end DoD’s deal because of the company’s ties to Syria, POGO believes that Rosoboronexport’s arrangement with the Pentagon also raises other concerns. Specifically, is the deal to buy 21 dual-use Mi-17 helicopters for $375 million (with a $500 million option to buy 12 more) in the best interest of the military and the U.S. taxpayer?

There are indications that the U.S. is being overcharged for Mi-17’s, especially given the non-competitive nature of Rosoboronexport’s award. Further, POGO is concerned that Rosoboronexport is not a responsible contractor with adequate standards of integrity and business ethics.

In fact, a Congressional official with knowledge of the matter told POGO that the U.S. government was likely overcharged for the helicopters. Rosoboronexport has charged the U.S. approximately $16.4 million for each Mi-17 helicopter, while Mi-17s from a previous Navy deal with a Huntsville, Alabama company called Defense Technology, Inc. cost only $10.8 million.

Guambat's confused now. Should he feel ripped off by bad procurement practice or indignant over Russians beating the US to the buyers. Or despondent about anyone profiteering in arms.

Bah. Back down in the burrow he goes. Happens every time he sticks his nose out.

US presence in Iraq only contracts

Soldiers gone, but contractors remain in Iraq. U.S. relies heavily on civilians, with even more in Afghanistan.

State Department officials have said they expect that 5,000 security contractors will be needed in Iraq next year to protect U.S. diplomats.

A “life support” team of an additional 4,500 contractors will cook, clean and provide transportation and other services.

In Afghanistan, 105,000 U.S. troops are supported by about 101,000 civilian contractors.

Only 23,000 of those contractors are U.S. citizens. About 50,000 are Afghans, and 27,900 come from other countries.

“The U.S. military can't move, fight or sustain itself without contractor support today,” said Steven Schooner, a law professor at George Washington University who has studied contractor fatalities.

According to a report released in August by the congressionally chartered Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least $31 billion — and possibly as much as $60 billion — has been lost to contract waste and fraud. It concluded that the government was relying too much on contractors and that major reforms were needed.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Soldiers-gone-but-contractors-remain-in-Iraq-2426228.php#ixzz1hiwaDxN2

Building wealth

When the Oil-for-food scandal first began to break, blame was laid at the feet of Saddam and the UN for all the corruption, with criticism especially vitupritive from the Bush administration, Fox News and like-minded cheerleaders. There was certainly blame enough to spread there, too, fair cop. But there would have been no corruption, notwithstanding the best efforts of Saddam or the worst efforts of the UN, without the willing and facilitating participation of business (much of it French and Russian), some of which is finally being "outed". (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/10/bad-saddam-bad-kofi-and-shame-on-rest.html) You might also cast your mind back to the Bush administration's handling of FEMA and the NOLA experience (e.g., http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/buck-doesnt-stop-its-lying-in-wait-for.html). Bear that in mind whilst reading the following.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Corruption continues to cost Iraq billions of dollars each year, and Washington and Baghdad should be doing far more to stop it, the top U.S. auditor for Iraq's reconstruction said in a report released on Sunday. Stuart Bowen, special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, said U.S. efforts to help Iraq build strong anti-corruption institutions were urgently needed and called for an American-Iraqi summit to battle a legacy of corruption. "Creating an effective anti-corruption structure within Iraq's government is essential to the long-term success of Iraq's fledgling democracy," Bowen wrote in his seventh quarterly report to Congress.

"Bowen's office, which has 20 auditors and 10 investigators in Iraq plus staffers in the United States, has made significant progress on cases charging fraud, bribery and kickbacks involving U.S. citizens -- government officials and contractors -- in Iraq, he said. The report said investigators had gathered "an enormous amount of evidence" in these investigations but gave no details on any possible indictments. Bowen said his office, created by Congress in November 2003 to oversee the Iraq Reconstruction and Relief Fund, recently transferred $2 million to the Justice Department to fund prosecution efforts, and four prosecutors were now working full-time on Iraq reconstruction cases. He said it was crucial for the United States to strengthen Iraq's new domestic anti-corruption agencies, noting that Iraq lost more than $2 billion each year in stolen gasoline and diesel fuel supplies. The report said Iraq's Bureau of Supreme Audit charged that up to $1.27 billion from some 90 contracts was lost from June 2004 to February 2005 because deals were given to "favored suppliers" and cash was given to third-party firms to work out contracts.

"Overall, the report said the United States had made steady progress in its $30 billion drive to rebuild Iraq, billed as the biggest U.S. foreign aid operation since the post-World War Two reconstruction of Europe."
http://today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=uri:2005-10-30T211014Z_01_KRA076157_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-RECONSTRUCTION.xml&pageNumber=1&summit=


"As the money runs out on the $30 billion American-financed reconstruction of Iraq, the officials in charge cannot say how many planned projects they will complete, and there is no clear source for hundreds of millions of dollars a year needed to operate the projects that have been finished, according to a report to Congress released on Sunday. The report, by the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction, describes an array of projects that went awry, sometimes astonishingly, like electrical substations that were built at great cost but never connected to the country's electrical grid. With more than 93 percent of the American money now committed to specific projects, it could become increasingly difficult to solve those problems. Issues like those "should have been considered before," said Jim Mitchell, a spokesman for the inspector general's office. "It's very critical right now, with so little of the U.S. money left to be committed, that they're going to have to make these determinations very quickly."

"Overall, the report says, there have been 4,208 death and injury claims filed through the insurance coverage that United States law requires for contractors of any nationality who work on American bases abroad. Although that number includes claims from bases around the world, the majority are believed to originate from Iraq and Afghanistan. Those death and injury tolls, which in the chaos of Iraq are probably underreported to begin with, especially among Iraqi contractors, have come about even though more than a quarter of the reconstruction money has actually "been spent on security costs related to the insurgency," the report says. The security costs have "proportionately reduced funds for other reconstruction projects," the report continues, leading to the cancellation of many initiatives.

"We welcome and value the independent oversight," said a spokeswoman for the State Department, which now largely oversees the rebuilding effort. "Their objective findings have helped improve transparency, accountability and efficiency as we work with the Iraqi people to establish an independent, stable and prosperous Iraq." The five electrical substations examined by the inspector general's office, which is led by Stuart Bowen Jr., were built in southern Iraq at a cost of $28.8 million. "The completed substations were found to be well planned, well designed and well constructed," the report says. Unfortunately, the system for distributing power from the completed substations was largely nonexistent. "No date for installing the distribution system was given," the report says."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/30/news/rebuild.php

"BASRA, Iraq — Laura Bush's gift to the people of Iraq is rising in a dirt lot across from a sheep market here, hidden behind high concrete walls and towers with armed guards. Behind the walls, hundreds of Iraqi workers in blue jumpsuits scurry around a construction site filled with rebar, dirt and trailers. The project, funded by the U.S. government and donations raised with the first lady's help, will someday be a hospital equipped to treat pediatric cancer patients. Nobody denies that Iraq needs new hospitals, but the experts questioned the priorities of Washington's $1-billion rebuilding plan, which has focused on construction instead of basic needs such as better training for doctors and public healthcare campaigns.

"We have more important priorities to solve our urgent health problems," said Abdulamir Khafaji, the chief pediatrician at Basra's largest hospital, citing the need for additional equipment in his emergency room. Meanwhile, the number of clinics to be built has been reduced because of security costs and other problems. It is uncertain whether Iraqis will be able to staff and maintain the health centers that are being constructed.

"The U.S. spent funds on equipment that is now sitting in warehouses and on medications that later disappeared, presumably stolen, according to interviews and federal reports. Iraqis and health experts said more attention should have been paid to refurbishing the country's dilapidated network of 1,700 clinics and nearly 200 hospitals. A 2004 survey of 214 clinics found that only 10% had a regular water supply, only half had electric generators, and less than a third had "functional and relatively clean" toilets. "I saw enormous incompetence which was more costly than even Iraqi corruption," said Richard Garfield, a Columbia University health expert who worked with U.S. and international officials in Iraq last year. The U.S. "was pouring money down the drain."

"To improve things, the U.S. issued a $43-million contract in April 2003 to Abt Associates Inc., a Massachusetts-based consulting firm, to modernize the Iraqi Health Ministry and provide needed supplies. But the company, which has worked on healthcare issues throughout the developing world, quickly ran into problems, according to an audit issued this year by the USAID inspector-general. Company officials were slow to mobilize. They bickered with Iraqis and officials with the Coalition Provisional Authority, the U.S.-led agency that administered Iraq until June 2004. One Abt manager "did not recognize" the CPA as a "legitimate authority," the audit said. Medical kits intended for 600 clinics contained damaged or useless equipment, the audit said. USAID subcontractors questioned the quality of a device that Abt bought to sterilize medical tools, noting that it was manufactured by an Indian firm that hadn't made such an appliance before. The medical kits, which were supposed to be purchased by October 2003, weren't delivered to the warehouse until June 2004, eight months late, the audit said. By February 2005, some clinics still had not received the kits. One subcontractor involved in delivering the equipment said he had "never witnessed such a debacle" in 20 years of working with USAID, the audit said. The audit also criticized USAID officials for constant turnover and failing to move quickly to address problems. In the end, USAID officials cut Abt's contract, paying it only $23 million. Abt officials refused to comment, referring all questions to USAID.

"By the time the Abt contract expired in November 2004, the U.S. already had a new approach to improve healthcare: building and refurbishing hundreds of clinics and hospitals. In March 2004, the Pentagon's reconstruction agency, now known as the Project and Contracting Office, announced the award of a $500-million contract to Parsons Corp., based in Pasadena, to build 150 clinics and refurbish 20 hospitals and other facilities. But violence flared in Iraq that month, causing security costs to soar. Parsons had to relocate its headquarters inside the heavily fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and limit trips around Iraq. The U.S. recently cut eight clinics from construction plans, citing security costs. The refurbishment project also became mired in landownership disputes, problems with Iraqi officials demanding kickbacks and poor performance by Parsons' Iraqi subcontractors, State Department officials said. The first of the new clinics is supposed to be complete by the end of this year. Parsons referred questions to the government. In contrast to the delays that have beset other construction projects, Basra Children's Hospital is on track to open its doors in September 2006 — 3 1/2 years after the invasion. That may be in part because of the intense interest shown by Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice."
http://www.latimes.com/la-fg-iraqhealth30oct30,0,1723256.story?page=2&track=morenews&coll=la-story-footer

Somewhat related post: http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/waging-war.html

Sticks & stones may break my bones but words can get you detained and deported

Just a couple more comments on the Scott Parkin bad deportment case (http://guambatstew.blogspot.com/2005/09/bad-deportment.html). First, it is interesting that the US MSM press (to the extent it takes notice), zeros in on Parkin's anti-Haliburton protest (e.g., http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3357623 and http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=3834280 and http://www.dfw.com/mld/startelegram/news/state/12619310.htm; and for a particularly partisan but-where-there's-smoke beat up see http://www.villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/archive/001287.php).


Would Haliburton have friends in high Aussie places? http://www.halliburton.com/kbr/govServ/asiaPac/integratedSecuritySolutions.jsp And see: "An article published in the Sydney Morning Herald of March 1 stated:
Halliburton has quietly put down deep roots in Australia. Its operations include hundreds of secret Defence projects, the Adelaide-to-Darwin railway and managing the Australian Grand Prix. (read more here)
Halliburton KBR's Infrastructure Divsion Global Headquarters is located in Adelaide. For more details see my article Halliburton's Adelaide" (http://adelaidenewsblog.blogspot.com/2005/09/halliburton-activist-arrested-and.html)

But the more important issue is the unfettered use of executive whim shadowed by the sacrosanct veil of national security. As the SMH editorial today says (http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html):

"Mr Parkin has said he is baffled by his deportation. US officials are, too. Immigration officials in Los Angeles waved him through when he arrived back. So grave is the threat he poses to security there that the FBI has said it will take no further interest in him. In the absence of detailed charges, the suspicion is that the Australian Government is acting in secret to silence a critic simply because it can. That may be wrong, but for security's sake, the Government should explain why it is wrong. If the Government wants public support for new laws which abridge fundamental democratic rights, it must say clearly why such rights must be curtailed in cases such as Mr Parkin's.

"Terrorism now occupies the place on the political stage once held by communism. It is the bogy for all seasons. That is not to say it poses no dangers - clearly it does. But those dangers can be exaggerated. Right now our politicians are playing on the electorate's fears by trying to look the toughest on terrorism. It is a risky road to popularity. While state governments outbid each other for the doubtful distinction of having the country's toughest police powers, the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Kim Beazley, has been egging on the Howard Government to match them in toughening Commonwealth laws and removing basic rights. Some in his party protest, but most are silent amid the clamour for more police and security powers. As the Parkin case shows, silence has its risks."

The Australian Government say the new laws are not unprecedented, that they are merely more or less copied from American and, more particularly, British laws. Yes, but: in Australia there is no counterbalancing consideration of restraint. The US has a bill of rights. And, as Dr Ben Saul, lecturer in the faculty of law at the University of NSW, points out (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/without-safeguards-new-laws-are-suspect/2005/09/18/1126981942350.html):

"Since the adoption of its Human Rights Act in 1998, human rights principles now permeate British law in ways unknown in Australia, not least in controlling excessive responses to terrorism. The British courts can independently supervise the impact of terrorism laws on the rights and freedoms of people in Britain, whether citizens or foreigners. For example, last year the House of Lords found that the indefinite detention of suspected terrorists was unjustifiably discriminatory because it targeted only foreigners.
Human rights law does not prevent effective responses to terrorism, since it allows rights to be limited or suspended to protect other social values, including security. Indeed, British courts have accepted their Government's view that terrorism is a serious threat which may justify temporarily suspending some human rights. At the same time, human rights law does ensure governments are held to account for restrictions they place on rights, so that they do not abuse their power under the guise of protecting security. It provides a principled framework for evaluating terrorism laws, ensuring they are strictly necessary and proportionate to the threat. In the absence of similar protections in Australia, Parliament should proceed carefully before agreeing to further terrorism laws."

Meanwhile, I and others like me will have to give very careful consideration to whether our choice of words might be considered an incite to violence or an insight to violence.

Waging war

All charts in this post are courtesy of http://www.oldamericancentury.org/charts.htm


"The US war in Iraq now costs more per month than the average monthly cost of military operations in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, a report has found. The Iraq Quagmire, a report issued yesterday by the Institute for Policy Studies and Foreign Policy in Focus, two US anti-war groups, put the cost of operations in Iraq at $US5.6 billion ($7.5 billion) a month, or almost $US186 million a day." http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/08/31/1125302633906.html

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he" (with apologies to Mandy Rice-Davis). Nevertheless, given the way the government is "privatising" the war effort, excuse me, "outsourcing" it, that is an assertion that could use some transparent study. There is this chart, for instance:

As well as many reports such as this: http://www.banderasnews.com/0501/edat-profiteers.htm

Now, as President Bush says, and all Americans would agree, "We have known freedom's price" and Americans will be counted on to defend freedom at any price when their freedom is threatened. What some Americans are asking, though, is whether the price of this war is still (if ever) about their freedom and, even if so, whether it is getting (or long ago got) out of hand, and whether the wages of this war are being paid to profiteers or patriots. They're doing a cost/benefit analysis because, as the President also said, "When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive." http://boycottliberalism.com/Bush-quotes.htm


It's somewhat unsettling that the last time Americans were united in their sense of moral courage and patriotic support of a major, expensive war effort was in WWII. Since then, and especially since the Viet Nam experience, a moral consensus has eluded them and patriots have been divided, notwithstanding the momentary bonded spirit immediately following 9-11. Could it be that American's disquiet over military adventure has something to do with what President Eisenhower tried to tell us in his farewell address in 1961?:

"We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts America is today the strongest, the most influential and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America's leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America's adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace; to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity and integrity among people and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology -- global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle -- with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.
Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs -- balance between the private and the public economy, balance between cost and hoped for advantage -- balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable; balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual; balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress; lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration.
The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of stress and threat. But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. I mention two only.
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.
Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
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 militaryindustrial 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.
Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.
In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.
Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
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.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific technological elite.
It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system -- ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.
Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.
Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.
Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.
Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
So -- in this my last good night to you as your President -- I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and peace. I trust that in that service you find some things worthy; as for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.
You and I -- my fellow citizens -- need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nation's great goals.
To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America's prayerful and continuing aspiration:
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://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

A little over 40 years later, a Forbes columnist put this spin on the Eisenhower speech: http://www.forbes.com/global/2003/0512/019.html

"It takes far fewer people to fight and direct wars today than it did even a decade ago. That's because the speed and power of the front-line soldier have been so greatly amplified by smart weapons and smart delivery systems, and because accurate information now moves so easily up the chain of command. Our distant wars are now fought, once again, by the few, the band of brothers, while most of the rest of us lie abed, watching their progress on CNN. The center of gravity of defense manufacturing has shifted decisively back into the civilian sector, as well. Large contractors still assemble the guidance system and explosive in a smart bomb and the complex mix of steel and silicon that makes up a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier. But the components that account for much of the cost and all of the astounding precision and agility of the new weapons--powerful chips, together with the countless layers of software that make them function--are manufactured by the same companies that build microprocessors for PCs and amplifiers for cell phones. It is the huge civilian demand for PCs, digital assistants, cell phones, high-tech cars and smart appliances that has made these components as cheap and disposable as bullets.

"Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry," Eisenhower warned in 1961, "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." That was perhaps true in 1961. Today, however, it is our liberty, our routine, peaceful purchases and pursuits that support the huge industrial base on which the arms manufacturers completely depend. Unconsciously, and without ever setting out to do so, our civilian sector gave our soldiers the tools they needed to bring this war to its mercifully quick conclusion. (sic)"

I don't think so. As President Eisenhower said, it is a military-industrial complex. It is a complex situation. But that doesn't make it incomprehensible. We need to find out if the tail is indeed wagging the dog, as the movie suggested.