President Eisenhower warns of military-industrial complex

President Eisenhower warns of military-industrial complex


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

On January 17, 1961, Dwight D. Eisenhower ends his presidential term by warning the nation about the increasing power of the military-industrial complex.

His remarks, issued during a televised farewell address to the American people, were particularly significant since Ike had famously served the nation as military commander of the Allied forces during WWII. Eisenhower urged his successors to strike a balance between a strong national defense and diplomacy in dealing with the Soviet Union. He did not suggest arms reduction and in fact acknowledged that the bomb was an effective deterrent to nuclear war. However, cognizant that America’s peacetime defense policy had changed drastically since his military career, Eisenhower expressed concerns about the growing influence of what he termed the military-industrial complex.

Before and during the Second World War, American industries had successfully converted to defense production as the crisis demanded, but out of the war, what Eisenhower called a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions emerged. This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience Eisenhower warned, "[while] we recognize the imperative need for this development...We must not fail to comprehend its grave implications we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence…The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist." Eisenhower cautioned that the federal government’s collaboration with an alliance of military and industrial leaders, though necessary, was vulnerable to abuse of power. Ike then counseled American citizens to be vigilant in monitoring the military-industrial complex.

Ike also recommended restraint in consumer habits, particularly with regard to the environment. "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," he said. "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage."


POLITICO

As early as 1959, Dwight D. Eisenhower, the sole general to be elected president in the 20th century, began to work with his younger brother Milton, president of Johns Hopkins University, and Malcolm Moos, his chief speechwriter, to create his final statement as he left public life. | AFP/Getty Images


President Dwight D. Eisenhower Warns of Military-Industrial Complex in Farewell Speech

Known as the "last great conservative Republican", Eisenhower gives advice to future generations.


(WASHINGTON, D.C.) - President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Jan 17, 1961

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward.

So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

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 is 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.

A huge increase in newer elements of our defense development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

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 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 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 few spiritual blessings.

Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity and that the sources -- 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.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Source: Public Papers of the Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960, p. 1035- 1040


Eisenhower and the Origins of the “Military-Industrial Complex”

Less than a week before he left office, President Eisenhower delivered his final speech to the American public, a speech that would come to be known as his Farewell Address. In the most famous portion of the address, Eisenhower warns against the danger of the “military-industrial complex.” The term so neatly captured an emerging phenomenon that, decades later, historians and popular commentators use it without pointing to its origin. Yet it is worth studying the original context to understand exactly what Eisenhower meant

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 military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

For Eisenhower, the danger posed by this new reality was not only the lobbying influence and economic might that arms companies would wield going forward. It was a “total . . . even spiritual” threat to the character of American society. Eisenhower’s private diary, as well as his letters to his friends during his political career, show his persistent concern about the unending militarization of American foreign policy. He viewed military spending as “sterile” and worried it would lead to a society that mistakenly valued safety and arms at the expense of schools, infrastructure, and social safety nets.

Relevance to today’s political environment

The Cold War would not end until more than two decades after Eisenhower left office. Since then, the American military has not demobilized in any significant way. More recently, a conversation about police budgets, equipment, and orientation to their communities has arisen after the killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Rayshard Brooks. In Minneapolis, for instance, nine of twelve city council members have pledged to replace their city’s police department with “a reimagined model of public safety.” Beyond Minneapolis, conversations about reducing police budgets are happening in almost every major city in America.

Today, Eisenhower offers Americans a way to think critically about the impacts of huge police budgets and militarized police equipment on American society.

New York City maintains a massive police force, the country’s largest. In 2019, the city spent nearly six billion dollars on its police force, a figure that dwarfed other city public safety agencies. The city’s allocation has also grown by about 30% in the past ten years alone.

These funding increases correlate with increased use of militarized police equipment. One study of the subject found that over 8,000 law enforcement agencies in the United States have used federally funded programs to buy a combination of traditional military equipment, including “machine guns, armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, and military aircraft.” The same study finds that the use of military tactics by local police has increased 1,400% in the past forty years.

Looking to the Future

If American policymakers took Eisenhower’s warning about the military-industrial complex to heart, they might direct spending on police to more benign ways of training and equipping them. This would not necessarily result in reduced spending on law enforcement (although Eisenhower would likely favor that). Yet it could lead to a new vision for it–and perhaps for all government agencies, be they local, state, or federal. Ideally, these agencies should view their mission as cooperating with American citizens who are trying to peacefully live their lives and pursue their dreams. Eisenhower’s brilliant insight was that a cooperative relationship between government and citizens cannot flourish if spending on military equipment, and the influence of companies who make and sell it, go unchecked.

Eisenhower was no pacifist. He oversaw a huge and growing military during his presidency and he personally conceived of and led the invasion of Normandy. He had no illusions that difficult policy questions might be resolved with easy answers. And yet, as he retired from public service, after eight years as president and nearly 30 years of arguably the most distinguished military career in American history, he advised Americans that they guard against the militarization of their society, lest they face the “total…even spiritual” adverse impact of allowing any armed group power over domestic life.


Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex

A review of James Ledbetter, Unwarranted Influence: Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Military-Industrial Complex. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011. 268 pp. $26.00.

On January 17, 1961, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gave his final presidential speech, which turned out to be his most memorable by virtue of this warning: “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.” James Ledbetter makes this speech the fulcrum for his brief but carefully researched and smoothly written book on the military-industrial complex (MIC). He looks into Eisenhower’s past to discover how a five-star general arrived at this seemingly incongruous warning and traces how the idea of the MIC evolved after 1961 as it became grist for a variety of mills.

Ledbetter recognizes the MIC’s fuzzy meaning, but for purposes of his analysis he supposes that “we can approximately define MIC as a network of public and private forces that combine a profit motive with the planning and implementation of strategic policy” (p. 6). For virtually all scholars, it comprises the armed forces and the civilian military leadership, the relevant committees and leadership of Congress, and the private contractors who supply goods and services to the military. Many analysts also include lesser players, such as the leading universities, certain scientists and think tanks, veterans’ groups, certain labor unions, and local politicians whose jurisdictions include military bases or contractors’ facilities.

Although the MIC obviously has powerful and widespread supporters, it has always attracted critics, who indict it on several counts, including wasteful military spending, diversion of government spending from social programs, economic distortions, enlargement of military influence in American society, promotion of a culture of state secrecy, and suppression of individual liberties. Rather than extensively evaluating these criticisms, Ledbetter focuses on the changing idea of the MIC, assessing contemporary arguments about it in the light of criteria suggested in Eisenhower’s speech.

He finds antecedents in several notions advanced previously, including the merchants-of-death thesis, the war-economy thesis, the garrison-state thesis, and the technocratic-elite thesis. These theses retain some pertinence within the MIC thesis.

Ledbetter traces Eisenhower’s concern about military-economic relations back at least to 1930-31, when Ike participated in Army planning for industrial mobilization. Having studied industrial agreements, possible takeovers, and price controls, he was uneasy about such military involvement in the economy. Ledbetter concludes that the “importance of keeping a peacetime separation between business and the military would stay with him for the rest of his life” (p. 51). As president, Eisenhower continued to emphasize “the need for restrained military spending to preserve American economic liberty” (p. 61).

Soon after becoming president, Eisenhower gave his second-most-memorable speech, the “Chance for Peace” address, on April 16, 1953. Stalin had just died, and the president sought to move the United States toward a less menacing relationship with the USSR by proposing measures to promote greater cooperation and trust between the Cold War adversaries. He highlighted the great opportunity costs of ongoing large-scale military preparedness. “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed” (p. 68). Although the “Chance for Peace” initiative bore no fruit and the Cold War assumed even more menacing dimensions after 1953, Eisenhower’s concern about its costly distortion of the U.S. economy clearly prefigured the concerns he expressed in his farewell address almost eight years later.

Ledbetter’s attempts to tie down exactly who coined the term “military-industrial complex” proved unsuccessful. Eisenhower’s chief speechwriter, Malcomb Moos, has often been credited, but even though he seemed to have been happy to let people think he had come up with the term, he never bluntly claimed to have done so. Ledbetter’s examination of successive drafts of the speech revealed no unambiguous evidence of who introduced it.

In any event, the term resonated with diverse political groups in the 1960s, including New Leftists inspired by C. Wright Mills’s analysis of the power elite, critics of wasteful military spending, such as Senator William Proxmire, and various antiwar groups. Eventually, the idea of the MIC merged into references to the “warfare state” and the “national security state.”

Over the years, many congressional investigations and other studies have been undertaken of Pentagon contracting and other aspects of military-economic relations in the United States. Serious problems―cost overruns, late deliveries, official and corporate corruption, crony-capitalist bailouts, de facto industrial policy-making, and many others―have been documented again and again. Despite repeated attempts ostensibly to root out these misfeasances and malfeasances, nothing fundamental ever changes in the MIC’s operation. Even now, more than twenty years after the USSR imploded and the Cold War ended, the United States spends more than ever on the military and does so as wastefully and nonchalantly as it did before, with no serious repercussions. Despite a long-standing statutory requirement that the Defense Department be audited annually, it never has been, and cannot be, owing to the sorry state of its financial records.

Ledbetter astutely concludes that “it is difficult to see how the United States would be sufficiently motivated to eliminate the MIC, let alone replace it with something superior. . . . [I]t is nearly impervious to democratic reform” (pp. 202-03). As he notes, the root problem is not so much the wretched performance of contractors and the self-interested actions of implicated parties in Congress and the military as it is the stupendously wide scope of U.S. geopolitical ambitions. As long as the U.S. government continues to perceive a “vital” interest in nearly every place and nearly every dispute in the wide world, any hope of realizing Eisenhower’s dream of cutting the MIC down to size and moving toward genuine disarmament and peace is doomed to disappointment.

[Acknowledgment: This review will appear in the Journal of Cold War Studies, published by the Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies at Harvard University.]


President Eisenhower warns of military-industrial complex - HISTORY

Three days from now, after half a century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor.

This evening I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the Nation.

My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and, finally, to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years.

In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the national good rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the Nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling, on my part, of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

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 is 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. A huge increase in newer elements of our defense development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research -- these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

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 scientifictechnological 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:


Endnotes

  • [1]Dwight D. Eisenhower, �rewell Address to the Nation,” http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm, August 6, 2015.
  • [2]Ibid.
  • [3] R. Buckminster Fuller, A Grunch of Giants, Excerpt, http://www.futurehi.net/docs/Bucky_Grunch_of_Giants.html, June 24, 2011.
  • [4] Ibid.
  • [5] Ibid.
  • [6] James Jay Carafano, 𠇏ive Steps to Save America’s Defense Industrial Base,” WebMemo, The Heritage Foundation, No. 3286 (June 9, 2011): http://report.heritage.org/wm3286.
  • [7] Ibid.
  • [8] Andrew J. Bacevich, “The Tyranny of Defense Inc.,” The Atlantic Monthly (January 2011):
  • http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/the-tyranny-of-defense-inc/8342/.
  • [9] R. Buckminster Fuller, A Grunch of Giants, Excerpt, http://www.futurehi.net/docs/Bucky_Grunch_of_Giants.html, June 24, 2011.
  • [10] James Jay Carafano, 𠇏ive Steps to Save America’s Defense Industrial Base,” WebMemo, The Heritage Foundation, No. 3286 (June 9, 2011): http://report.heritage.org/wm3286.
  • [11] Dwight D. Eisenhower, �rewell Address to the Nation,”http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm, August 6, 2015.
  • [12] Ibid.
  • [13] Ibid.

This content reflects the personal opinions of the author. It is accurate and true to the best of the author’s knowledge and should not be substituted for impartial fact or advice in legal, political, or personal matters.

© 2019 Fernando Guadalupe Jr


Ike's Warning Of Military Expansion, 50 Years Later

In his final speech from the White House, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that an arms race would take resources from other areas -- such as building schools and hospitals. Bill Allen/AP hide caption

In his final speech from the White House, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned that an arms race would take resources from other areas -- such as building schools and hospitals.

On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower gave the nation a dire warning about what he described as a threat to democratic government. He called it the military-industrial complex, a formidable union of defense contractors and the armed forces.

Eisenhower, a retired five-star Army general, the man who led the allies on D-Day, made the remarks in his farewell speech from the White House.

As NPR's Tom Bowman tells Morning Edition co-host Renee Montagne, Eisenhower used the speech to warn about "the immense military establishment" that had joined with "a large arms industry."

"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."

Since then, the phrase has become a rallying cry for opponents of military expansion.

Eisenhower gave the address after completing two terms in office it was just days before the new president, John F. Kennedy, would be sworn in.

Eisenhower was worried about the costs of an arms race with the Soviet Union, and the resources it would take from other areas -- such as building hospitals and schools.

Bowman says that in the speech, Eisenhower also spoke as someone who had seen the horror and lingering sadness of war, saying that "we must learn how to compose differences not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."

Another concern, Bowman says, was the possibility that as the military and the arms industry gained power, they would be a threat to democracy, with civilians losing control of the military-industrial complex.

In his remarks, Eisenhower also explained how the situation had developed:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions."

The difference, Bowman says, is that before the late 1950s, companies such as Ford built everything from jeeps to bombers -- then went back to building cars. But that changed after the Korean War.

Bowman says that it's important to note that during the Cold War, the U.S. military didn't draw down its troops like it did after World War II.

"It kept a large standing army after the Korean War," he says.

America's new reliance on sophisticated weapons technology also helped bring about what Bowman calls "a technology race with the Soviets."

And that meant that weapons manufacturing became more specialized.

"So [for] a company like Ford, going from cars to jeeps is one thing cars to missiles is quite another," Bowman says.

In an effort to control the expansion of the military-industrial complex, Eisenhower consistently sought to cut the Pentagon's budget.

The former general wanted a budget the country could afford, Bowman says. He upset all the military services with his budget cuts, especially the Air Force.

Citing another quote from Eisenhower -- this one from another speech on military spending -- Bowman says, "The jet plane that roars overhead costs three quarters of a million dollars. That’s more than a man will make in his lifetime. What world can afford this kind of thing for long?"

In today's government, Eisenhower has a fan in his fellow Kansan Secretary of Defense Robert Gates -- who keeps a portrait of the former general in his office at the Pentagon, Bowman says.

Speaking at the Eisenhower Library last year, Gates talked about America's insatiable appetite for more and more weapons:

"Does the number of warships we have, and are building, really put America at risk, when the U.S. battle fleet is larger than the next 13 navies combined -- 11 of which are our partners and allies?

Is it a dire threat that by 2020, the United States will have only 20 times more advanced stealth fighters than China?

These are the kinds of questions Eisenhower asked as commander-in-chief. They are the kinds of questions I believe he would ask today."

But, Bowman says, it has only become more difficult to control the size of the nation's military industry.

First, "there are only a handful of defense giants," he says, "which means you can't shop around for a better price."

And companies such as Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman are also adept at both lobbying and marketing to promote their interests.

Bowman says, "they also spread the jobs around the country, to lock in political support."

Gates has also discussed the difficulty of cutting military spending:

"What it takes is the political will and willingness, as Eisenhower possessed, to make hard choices -- choices that will displease powerful people both inside the Pentagon, and out."

Bowman says that some industry observers believe that "the one thing that could create that political will is the nation's huge deficit." Only that might force cuts in the overall defense budget.


60 Years Ago Today, Eisenhower Predicted the Rise of the Military-Industrial Complex—He Was Right

On Jan. 17, 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned the world about the rise of what can now be referred to as the ‘deep state.’ In his outgoing remarks from his farewell speech, Eisenhower bravely called out the shadow government who operates behind the scenes to promote war and profit from mass murder. He called this entity the military-industrial complex.

Eisenhower, who was a retired five-star general, led the allies into Germany on D-Day. Being one of the few five-star generals in history, Eisenhower knew what he was saying when he warned that “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.”

As declassified files, released at the end of last year show, the very next year after Eisenhower issued this warning, the US government began planning false flag attacks to provoke war.

On March 22, 1962, a meeting, held by the “Special Group (Augmented),” which according to an encyclopedia on the Central Intelligence Agency, included Attorney General Robert Kennedy, CIA Director John McCone, National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Lemnitzer, discussed the creation of a false flag attack on the United States to be blamed on the Soviets.

According to the documents, the US government wanted to manufacture or obtain Soviet aircraft so they could launch an attack on America or friendly bases and use those attacks as a pretext for war.

According to the previously Top Secret classified documents:

“There is a possibility that such aircraft could be used in a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy installations or in a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack U.S. or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for U.S. intervention.”

But that is not all. As TFTP reported last year, the JFK files also revealed plans for another false flag attack to be blamed on Cuba. In the document which was marked TS for Top Secret, the US military revealed its plans to trick Americans into war with Cuba. The plans were to create and carry out false flag terror attacks against American citizens and use them as propaganda to gain support for the war against Fidel Castro.

In the documents, officials noted that the plans for the attacks were “approved” and the Joint Chiefs merely needed to pick one of the nine “pretexts” to use to trick US citizens into war.

The plans involved killing innocent people and injuring others and making sure these instances would be “widely publicized” as propaganda to start an unjust war.

“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington. The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated),” the document reads.

Notice how callous these monsters sound when talking about drowning a boatload of Cubans—which would have likely contained innocent children—to start a bogus war for profit and bolster the military-industrial complex.

The document continues, “We could foster attempts on the lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of a Cuban agent and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government.”

While these revelations have all been declassified, the reality is that this provoking of war and militarism was only just getting started back then. Since Eisenhower’s speech—which nearly every single politician has chosen to ignore—the military-industrial complex has become mainstream and is now merely a function of the state.

Weapons companies now maintain their grip on politicians by making weapons in most of the country so they can offer “jobs” and boost political stats. Eisenhower described this rising situation 60 years ago.

“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of ploughshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.”

Seeing the profitability in war, these merchants of death chose not to stand down like they did after World War II. Instead, the Cold War was used to build the largest military the world had ever seen.

Since then, false flags and fake news have been shoved down the throats of the American citizens to sell them wars in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and hundreds of other nations in which the military-industrial complex spreads like a virus.

Because America chose to ignore Eisenhower’s prophetic words, US citizens, their children, and their children’s children have amassed a debt so large that it can never be paid back. The current cost of the military-industrial complex is now $2 billion—every single day—and these are only the costs the government admits to incurring.

Sadly, the war machine shows no sign of slowing. In spite of Donald Trump running on a platform of America first, just like all the recent presidents before him, he has chosen war first. The gears of the military-industrial complex will continue to turn until the empire collapses.

This collapse, however, is not necessarily a bad thing, if peaceful people use it as an opportunity. As Ron Paul noted last month the collapse of the empire for freedom-minded individuals is an opportunity to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.

“The big opening for us is the fact that this system is coming apart. We’re on the verge of something like what happened in ‘89 when the Soviet system just collapsed,” Paul said. “I’m just hoping our system comes apart as gracefully as the Soviet system.”

“I think our stature in the world and our empire will end, and that’s when, hopefully, the doors will be open and [people will] say, ‘Hey, maybe these libertarians have some answers to this.’”

When the unsustainable war machine finally sucks the last penny from its citizens, a revolution will indeed take place, and we must be ready.

“If they only hear our message, I know they would choose liberty and sound money and freedom and peace over the mess we have today,” said Paul—one of the only politicians to ever take Eisenhower’s advice to heart.


How do you feel about President Eisehower's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, which was given in his Farewell Address?

On January 17, 1961 President Eisenhower gave a short farewell address to the American people. Within that speech, he warned about the growth of what he called "The Military-Industrial Complex".

What do you think about that warning?

Links below to a collection of information about the address from the Eisenhower Presidential Library, and to a video from YouTube of the complete about 15 minute address.

PeabodyKid

I voted 8 years too late. Too be fair, though, he was working against it himself too some extent, including starting NASA in part because of the 3 competing missile/military space programs, which was obviously wasteful. But on the other hand, for example, he had the U-2 overflights of the USSR done by CIA, in an attempt to establish "plausible deniability." Establishing adjunct branches of the military is clearly aiding and abetting "the military-industrial complex".

I give him the benefit of the doubt that when warning about the military-industrial complex, he was also warning about the CIA, the NSA, the FBI, etc.

Pikeshot1600

Eisenhower had expressed concern over the direction of modern government in the United States. The "military-industrial complex" had developed in the 1940s - and in some cases previous to that. As with most engines of political economy, it tended to perpetuate itself and establish layers of self interest affecting public policy and the expenditure that facilitates that.

In addition, the development of shadow government, including clandestine agencies and what was frequently "off budget" means of funding them, could be seen as an undermining of legitimate governance and of appropriate oversight by public officials. If there was a communist to be found, or some other perceived threat, the CIA, the FBI and "organized crime" were sometimes partners of convenience.

Unfortunately, Eisenhower's caution about many of such things has been bulldozed by historical developments. In particular, the caution about deficit spending has not raised red flags in decades. Politicians see very little upside to cutting spending, and absolutely no upside to increasing taxes that clearly impact voters (income tax, etc.).

The military-industrial complex won the Second World War, and subsequently entrenched itself as a permanent lobby to continue its influence in the political economy of the US.

Stevev

PeabodyKid

Agreed that the military-industrial complex started in the run-up to WW II, and exploded from there. But the "8 years" in the poll choice is meant to represent the 8 years that Eisenhower was President, when he was uniquely qualified as President - and as a retired 5-star general and former Army Chief of Staff - to do something about it.

But in fairness to Eisenhower, much of it happened on FDR's and Truman's watches - The Manhattan Project, the Korean War non-declaration of war, and the H bomb project, whose first detonation took place on November 1, 1952. For first H-bomb test, see Wikipedia article on "Ivy Mike" below.

Duncanness

Leftyhunter

On January 17, 1961 President Eisenhower gave a short farewell address to the American people. Within that speech, he warned about the growth of what he called "The Military-Industrial Complex".

What do you think about that warning?

Links below to a collection of information about the address from the Eisenhower Presidential Library, and to a video from YouTube of the complete about 15 minute address.

Sparky

BrutusofNY

@PeabodyKid - But the "8 years" in the poll choice is meant to represent the 8 years that Eisenhower was President, when he was uniquely qualified as President - and as a retired 5-star general and former Army Chief of Staff - to do something about it.

Given this stipulation, I voted 8 years too late because of Ike Presidential policies and because of his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles.

When he took office in 1953, Ike had a choice: to continue to near messianic anti-Communism of the late Truman years that unequivocally implied global empire or to approach the situation along the lines advocated by Robert Taft, whom Ike had defeated for the 1952 Republican Presidential nomination. It was a critical decision because any empire demands a commensurate military power to sustain it. Ike chose global struggle.

Ike’s choice of Dulles revealed much. Dulles, one the lead draftsmen of infamous German war-guilt clause of the Versailles Treaty and law partner of Gerhardt Westrich, German chairman of ITT which itself was the largest shareholder of Focke-Wulf and which, after Dulles death, was awarded $27 million in compensation for damage inflicted on its share of the Focke-Wulf plant by Allied bombing during World War II, suggests much about Ike’s real foreign policy intentions.

During the election year of 1952, Dulles’ impatience with the post-WWII foreign problems and danger was clearly stated in his article "A Policy of Boldness" in Life magazine on May 19. There he insisted that the Truman policy of containment must be replaced by a policy of "liberation," since the former was based on "treadmill policies which at best might perhaps keep us in the same place until we drop exhausted."

As Secretary of State Dulles believed Eastern European liberation would come when American policy made "it publicly known that it wants and expects liberation to occur." A tragic consequence of this policy appeared in 1956 when Hungary rose against the Russians and were crushed by Soviet tanks without the Eisenhower administration raising a hand to help.

Ike’s problem here was that, quite properly concerned about run-away government and currency destruction, he was trying to run the new American empire on the cheap. He substituted the apparently less expensive nuclear bomb option for the traditional military infrastructure it takes to actually sustain an empire. When the Hungarians rose up, the only choice available was sit quiet or use nuclear weapons.

So Ike boxed himself in when he abjured Taft’s conception of national defense.

Truman had gone through an impressive military build down after World War II that was radically reversed in 1951 and 1952, resulting in a 336% increase over two years. Ike fulfilled a campaign promise to end the Korean Police Action that had driven Truman’s war spending. But, there was no noticeable decrease in the war budget there was no build down. But he effectively disguised the implications of his choice with what later came to be called MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction.

His very late talk about undue influence is cheap talk the rubber hits the road with contract process whereby the necessary military force is created and sustained. For Ike, on the way out the door and with his eye on his own place in history, to pretend that contractors and the military people who create and administer those contracts that are the financial lifeblood of a military industrial complex will not form a self-interested unitary relationship is to believe in the tooth fairy. He had been around the military all of his career. He knew the score long before 1960 in a way that his successor did not.

Ike offered many truly honorable qualities. He was a restrained personality the likes of which the U.S. could use today he was the last President who believed that per the Constitution only Congress could declare war and he clearly sensed things were getting out of hand.

There are other statements in his farewell address that have been unfortunately ignored:

“We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations…

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…

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…

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.”

Ike’s warning was legitimately profound. It is too bad that it was not taken seriously during his time as President.


How do you feel about President Eisehower's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex, which was given in his Farewell Address?

the space program started as totally military
the thought that the soviets had launchers capable of dropping their atomic pay load on any large US city with complete immunity was a nasty shock
at a stroke it made the totality of the USA air power obsolete

it was the strategic equivalent of the Virginia / Monitor duel In an editorial shortly afterwards, the Times of London stated:
"There is not now a ship in the English Navy apart from HMS Warrior and her sister Iron-sides( Britain’s first ironclad ships) that it would be not madness to trust to an engagement with that little Monitor.
the Royal Navy canceled all contracts for wooden ships just days after reports of the battle reached London.

BrutusofNY

Very good research . In 20/20 hindsight it seems ridiculous that approximately 1,400 men could defeat more the 20k soldiers with at best very limited air support from faraway planes based in Honderous and no heavy artilery. Five light tanks only goes so far. No doubt there was internal opposition to Castro but no coordination with them seems like a bad idea although the article didn't mention if the internal opposition was or was not riddled with pro Castro informants.
Leftyhunter

I agree with you. The CIA plan relied on popular uprisings against Castro and also massive defections in its forces. For Americans informed by an extreme hostility to Communism, be it religious, liberty-based political conceptions, or just an opposition to Marxist economics, it might seem a given that wide-spread internal opposition to Castro would exist and could be counted on.

But through Cuban eyes, I am pretty sure things looked very different.

As far back as 1933, Fulgencio Batista met with mobster Meyer Lansky, who was looking for a new center of operations once Prohibition was going to be repealed and bootleg profits would collapse. Their personal friendship and business relationship lasted three decades. In that same year, Batista led the Sergeants' Revolt, as part of the coup that overthrew the existing government of Cuba.

On January 15, 1934 Batista, encouraged by American Ambassador Jefferson Caffery, who had been in Cuba less than a month, forced the resignation of the existing, short-lived Cuban government, which had nationalized American-owned Electric Bond and Share Company the day before.

Batista, after years of being the strongman behind a succession of puppet presidents, was himself elected President of Cuba in 1940, but his hand-picked candidate was defeated in 1944 by the opposition party that frowned on gambling.

But that frowning did not prevent a large mafia meeting in Havana between December 22nd and the 26th, 1946. Attendees at the Hotel Nacional meeting include: Meyer Lansky, Frank Costello, Tommy Lucchese, Vito Genovese, Joe Bonanno, Santo Trafficante, and Moe Dalitz. Among the many topics discussed was the short future of Bugsy Siegel, who was killed the next June. The Cuban governments elected in 1944 and 1948 both had serious corruption problems.

Two months before the 1952 presidential elections, Batista regained formal control of the government that he had given up in 1944, and put larger gambling operations back on the agenda. He coordinated his plans with Lansky and gave him an annual salary of $25,000 to serve as an unofficial gambling minister.

In 1955, the Batista government passed a law granting a gaming license to anyone who invested $1 million in a hotel or $200,000 in a new nightclub. Unlike the procedure for acquiring gaming licenses in Vegas, this provision exempted “investors” from background checks as well as public matching funds for construction, a 10-year tax exemption, and duty-free importation of equipment and furnishings.

Under the embarrassing spur of the Kefauver Committee Investigations, which undercut J. Edgar Hoover’s claim that organized crime did not exist, the FBI was developing better ways of tracking down dirty money. Gangsters with loads of tainted cash saw Batista’s Havana as a stable offshore depository.

Unsurprisingly, Batista's regime became even more decadent and corrupt. And Cuba became increasingly divided socially. Young Fidel Castro took advantage of the growing gap between rich and poor to advance his agenda. On July 26, 1953, he and a small band of guerrillas attacked military barracks at the eastern end of the island. Batista’s men captured and tried him, but it gave Castro the opportunity to register an impassioned sound bite to the world. "Sentence me. No matter. History will absolve me." In a way, it did.

So in 1960, Castro was still a hero to the masses, if not the middle class and above. His wealth destroying economic policies had not yet done their worst – most of that was still in the future. The tidy, idealized conception of what America meant to the designers of Plan Trinidad was unrecognizable to most of the Cuban people.

I think it is distinctly possible that the CIA was dreaming if it really believed in massive local support regarding the Bay of Pigs invasion. The rebellion in Hungary, if that was considered relevant, came only after eleven years of Communist rule and in the wake of a program of de-Stalinization that weakened the chains. Castro had been in power just a little over two years.

And it seems to me that Trinidad’s assumption that a beachhead would be established on Cuban soil and maintained for two weeks to a month in the face of Castro’s sizable forces suggests they did not actually believe it - unless they were confident about and well-connected with the Escambray rebellion. The agency was growing in power and confidence. They may have sought use Trinidad as an initial lever for later military support since it does not seem that the Escambray rebellion could have succeeded otherwise.

But that all became academic when JFK killed Trinidad, replacing it with the Zapata Plan that had been kluged together in three days and did not even assume local support.

Even if the Trinidad plan would have worked, given the CIA’s operational connections with the Mafia via Howard Hughes executive Robert Maheu, is seems likely that Batista or a clone of him would have ruled Cuba instead of Castro.


Watch the video: Στα κάγκελα οι Τούρκοι: Οι ΗΠΑ Θέλουν το Μ. Κουρδιστάν


Comments:

  1. Fezahn

    I'm sorry, but I think you are making a mistake. I can prove it.

  2. Salem

    Bravo, your idea it is magnificent

  3. Panagiotis

    It's here if I'm not mistaken.

  4. Kakazahn

    I still remember the age of 18

  5. Moswen

    Not in this matter.



Write a message