iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Papers Shed New Light On Eisenhower's Famous 'Military-Industrial Complex' Farewell Speech

JOHN MILBURN   12/10/10 08:10 PM ET   AP

Eisenhower Papers

ABILENE, Kan. — For nearly two years, President Dwight D. Eisenhower and his aides searched for the right words to describe at the end of his presidency his fear that the nation's burgeoning military power was driving its foreign policy, newly released papers show.

Many months before delivering the farewell address in which he famously warned about the strength of the American "military-industrial complex," Eisenhower weighed various ideas for the speech, but concerns about the military were always central to his remarks.

The Eisenhower Presidential Library on Friday unveiled previously unseen drafts of the speech that were found recently in a cabin owned by Eisenhower speechwriter Malcolm Moos.

The documents help explain the origins of the term "military-industrial complex," which Eisenhower used to warn against unbridled military development. The term was thought to have started as "war-based" industrial complex before becoming "military" in later drafts.

But that theory was based on an oral history from Ralph Williams, one of Eisenhower's aides. In the new collection, "military" appears in the passage from the first draft.

"What we know now is that `military-industrial complex' was in there all along," said Valoise Armstrong, the archivist who processed the new papers.

In one draft, the paragraph mentioning the military-industrial complex is riddled with pencil marks deleting whole sentences, but the term itself is unblemished.

Moos' son, Grant, found the papers – covered with pinecones, dirt and other debris – in a cabin in Minnesota earlier this year. He turned them over to the library in October.

"We are just so fortunate that these papers were discovered," said Karl Weissenbach, director of the library in Abilene. "We were finally able to fill in the gaps of the address. For a number of years, it was apparent that there were gaps."

The papers show that Eisenhower and his staff spent two years preparing for his final speech to the nation. One document features a typewritten note from the president lamenting that when he joined the military in 1911, there were 84,000 Army soldiers – a number that ballooned roughly tenfold by 1960.

"The direct result of this continued high level of defense expenditures has been to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions, where none had existed before," he wrote in the passage, a variation of which reached the delivered speech on Jan. 17, 1961.

The notion of a farewell address began with a list of potential topics Eisenhower could discuss from May 1959 through the end of his second term.

The drafts show that the speech started as a reflection on public service and the role of the military, but expanded into wide-ranging remarks about the technological revolution and his lament that he never achieved world peace, but avoided a nuclear war.

Eisenhower biographer David Nichols noted that while the address is known for the reference to the military-industrial complex, the president had warned about military growth and Cold War threats throughout his presidency.

"He was always talking about the Cold War and the threat to American values and the danger that America would become a garrison state," Nichols said. "The military wanted a lot more than he was willing to give them. It frustrated the Army. He thought about it all the time."

The papers include 21 drafts of the speech, showing the evolution of the final presentation, which was originally intended to be given before Congress but was eventually delivered from the Oval Office.

Nichols, who is working on a book about Eisenhower and the Suez Canal Crisis, said historians often overlook the president's speeches because of his weak skills as an orator. But, he said, Eisenhower was heavily involved in his public addresses, often rewriting them himself until moments before delivery.

The presidents' brother, Milton Eisenhower, and Moos' staff helped him develop his farewell speech.

Milton Eisenhower's notations are found throughout the rough drafts, including wholesale changes on one draft prepared just 10 days before the president spoke on television. Weissenbach said Milton Eisenhower was part of the president's inner circle, along with the president's son John.

"That to me illustrates how Milton had a take-charge moment where he wasn't pleased with the direction it was taking and made an overhaul. Obviously he wouldn't have done it without the blessing of his brother," Weissenbach said.

Nichols said Milton Eisenhower had a special relationship with his brother throughout his presidency. However, he said, little exists in the public record of his involvement, outside a few memos in the archives.

"Eisenhower kept marvelous records on what he did, in the Oval Office, the hospital, but his conversations with Milton were off the record," Nichols said. "I only wish and pray that we could uncover some notes."

Born in 1890, Eisenhower grew up in Kansas and graduated from West Point. During World War II, he commanded the Allied forces in Europe, including the D-Day invasion of France.

After the war, he became president of Columbia University and the first commander of NATO before running for president in 1952, a campaign that featured the slogan "I like Ike." He died in 1969.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Jeff Muskus  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 498
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
13champlain
It is all good....range rover all wood
03:08 PM on 12/13/2010
Eisenhower was interesting man. They definetly do not make them like him anymore
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BacSi
Celer, Silens, Mortalis
05:22 PM on 12/13/2010
Actually they do
07:55 PM on 12/12/2010
Eisenhower was a distant cousin of mine on my father's side (& he fought in WWII also). Up to him, most Repubs were very leery of going to war - they weren't "war mongerers" as people seem to think. It was the Dems, Woodrow Wilson (WWI), JFK who got us into Vietnam & Johnson who continued it and Nixon (R) who ended it. Eisenhower was not for getting involved in Vietnam, etc. Both Bush's weren't "Consv. Repubs".....and it may come as a surprise that there are many Repubs that aren't for these current wars either - not into nation building. There's growing desire to end them as the real Consv. Repub. is growing, thanks to the Tea Party -- because they're not winnable and not really protecting us from terrorists - that's a whole different type of war anyway. We're not "anti-war" - we're for that only if it's totally clear to most that it is absolutely necessary for survival/keep our freedoms and then you go in strong with everything you need and win asap.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mitzvah
Optimistic Realist
11:09 PM on 12/12/2010
I struggle to understand how you could take the position you have posted. As I recall, most of the Republicans today have backed the current wars by feeding this country's electorate the line that NOT being involved in these wars would be tantamount to being weak at best, and putting the safety and welfare of this country in great peril at worst. During the campaign for the 2004 election, I vividly recall that the Karl Rove operatives and V.P. Cheney himself repeatedly "warned" that a Democratic victory would leave the country open to another terrorist attack because of the oft-stated position among the Democratic candidates that we did NOT belong in any war in the Middle East. Remember Gov. Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich? Definitely NOT Republican spokepersons!!
thebigbike
ran away to be a cowboy
03:25 PM on 12/12/2010
Yet another Republican who would have never been allowed in the partei having those values and understandings today
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Houston
British and a London resident
04:38 PM on 12/11/2010
I wonder what Eisenhower would make of today's situation? At least then there could be some justification for it with the cold war and half of Europe occupied by the Soviets. But now? How do you justify the spending?
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
SirRealDeal
And you press on God's waiter your last dime
04:53 PM on 12/11/2010
Through the use of fear about how the mooslims have a burning desire to hurt us.
photo
shthar
An error (500 Internal Server Error) has occured
03:53 PM on 12/11/2010
And this is why they'll never let another general even run for president.
11:53 PM on 12/12/2010
Not so true. Before the Republican party chose Bush to to run someone had approached and asked Former General Colin Powell to run for President. He declined. You have to get good men to agree to run first.
If Colin Powell had run, I would have voted for him.
If General Petraeus runs, I'll vote for him.
photo
shthar
An error (500 Internal Server Error) has occured
02:21 AM on 12/13/2010
Like you said, IF Colin Powell had run.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
popart
retired school teacher
02:13 PM on 12/11/2010
the first man i ever voted for was Adali Stevenson.....a liberal democrat...lost to a war hero ...I love Ike.....in a slam dunk election....Ike played alot of golf as a president while Senator Joe McCarthy and The John Birch Society blackballed lots of good people including the president himself...the so called commie threat was as potent a weapon against liberal thinking in the 50's as is the Tea Party anti americaism rants of today. The radical right then and now are expert at feeding the gullible american voter the kinds of things that play into their predjudices and take advantage of their gullibility. by pretending to be 100% american the tea party which if you look at it closely is really anti-american...it can mislead many americans into supporting
policies that can and will destoy us. .
gparks
Fan of truth, justice, prosperity for all!
03:08 PM on 12/12/2010
popart ..."Scare the white folks" campagnes are NOT new to America or it's politics ... your observation is spot on!

Today's radical right have become mainstream Republicans, more sophisticated ... thus even MORE dangerous and destructive.

50% of the Repubs in the coming Congress are NEW to governance and do not know the intricacies of how to get things done nor care to help the vast majority of Americans. Preferring to serve the 330,000 wealthest Americans in THEIR quest for more wealth and controll.

The so-called establishment Repubs DO know how to use the rules and ways of government. And have used that knowledge to obstruct the duely ELECTED President and hold hostage the rest of America as it forces its factually unworkable 40 year old policies on everyone.

The remarkable thing is this ... with unpresidented access to information based on historical facts ... the MSM's journalist have decided to be the business of spewing mis-information, faux comparisson, while ignoring the governance, policies and practices of Republican rule that put the country in it current stituation.
11:56 PM on 12/12/2010
The current situation has been a long time coming and it took people on both sides of the aisle to get us there. It'll take people on both sides of the aisle to undo it as well. If only....
gparks
Fan of truth, justice, prosperity for all!
03:09 PM on 12/12/2010
popart ... I thoight I'd fanned you!

Fanned 53
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gottlieb
hated by left since 1973 and right since 1982
01:42 PM on 12/11/2010
I learned he also referred to the danger of the congressional-military-industrial complex but took the congressional out because he didn't think the executive should comment on the legislative branch of our government according to his understanding of the constitution. When every major multi-billion dollar weapon system has a part produced in almost every congressional district, President Eisenhower is so vindicated in his warning of this threat to the American Way while the warning has been ignored in the desire for political power by members of all political parties. It is time to get rid of the pork in the military budget but politicians want to be reelected so they will not antagonize the military industrial complex which bankrolls their campaigns. Who will be a modern example of a "Profile in Courage?"
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Puller58
Man of Mystery
01:15 PM on 12/11/2010
My late father hated Eisenhower with a passion.  He claimed that you couldn't buy a job while Eisenhower was in the White House.  That said, it's a pity his speech didn't have more of an impact.
11:50 AM on 12/12/2010
It took a long while for the nation to reabsorb all the soldiers from WWII into productive private enterprise. Even though women had proved they could work any job that men could during the war, the country went back to "...women should be at home while men work in the factories" much as a result of this job availability imbalance.
FreeAmerican7
It's hard to soar like an Eagle around Turkeys!
01:07 PM on 12/11/2010
The obscene profits of the "Military-Industrial Complex" are to enrich the WARMONGERS who pay for the election of POLITICIANS so that to have "NEVER-ENDING WARS!"
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:02 PM on 12/11/2010
Mistaking power for strength is a common mistake - and the USA has lost virtually ALL of its strength in its addiction to power.

A friend of mine, in researchin­g an academic project, interviewe­d a Native American shaman - and in the course of their conversati­on, the shaman declared that the white man would eventually lose more than the Native Americans ever had to the demon of nuclear weaponry - even if they were never used again - that the power they possessed made men mad and destroyed their souls.

There was a reason, he said, that the Great Spirit had buried all the uranium deep in the ground...
11:52 AM on 12/12/2010
Now there's a n interesting thought.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
tdpubs
Content publisher for small business marketing
12:48 PM on 12/11/2010
It's interesting that you don't hear much about one of the most popular Republican presidents in US history. He did far more for his country that Mr. Reagan but he was hated by the right wing nuts of the 50's. When was the last time a Republican spoke about public service?
11:56 AM on 12/12/2010
It's definitely time for that. I do believe that is where the rhetoric of Sarah Palin is leading, even though she isn't as eloquent (maybe she just needs a better speech writer). She means well, she's just unaware that people can't read her mind. She needs to elucidate more.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Souris9
Academic librarian
11:18 AM on 12/13/2010
Is that supposed to be a joke? Too subtle for me, I'm afraid.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sysaphean
12:35 PM on 12/11/2010
oops, made a few typos with that post....my apologies. Not enough coffee yet.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Sysaphean
12:34 PM on 12/11/2010
Despite Eisenhower's warnings, he regularly used the military in support of industry, such as in 1953, when, in concert with the CIA, he and Britain overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, and installed the Shaw, all for oil. This directly laid the ground work for all we see today.

Later, in 1954, the US launched Operation PBSUCCESS, which overthrew the democratically elected President of Guatemala, for the United Fruit Company, which as the years went on, resulting in Pinochet eventually taking power, causing thousands to disappear and lose their lives.

It would be nice if President Eisenhower didn't actually didn't use the very thing he WARNED us about, as the door was hitting him in in the rear end, while leaving the White House.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
1776 or 1984
IT'S AN EMPIRE, NOT A REPUBLIC!
12:41 PM on 12/11/2010
He basically gave a veiled declaration that the Republic is replaced by Empire, and that even he was powerless to stop it. It wasn't a warning, it was a declaration for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.
photo
Soulsurfer
Solar Electrician,Longtime Surfin'Fool
12:49 PM on 12/11/2010
And to this day, no elected official who values his well-being would oppose them.
12:29 PM on 12/11/2010
Eisenhower coudn't have forseen that it would get even worse than he imagined because this military-industrial complex is being told to jump to the orders of newly wealthy foreign owners.
photo
Ladyrantsalot
The bell tolls for thee.
12:26 PM on 12/11/2010
I wonder what ole Ike would think of a "defense" budget that tops $600 billion annually and, when you add the two "off-budget wars" and other military-related expenditures, the US spends almost $1 trillion per year on the military-industrial-Congressional complex?