When President Eisenhower said, in a 1961 speech, “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” people had little understanding of what a powerful force the military establishment would become a decade into the 21st century.

In his February 1 remarks on his proposed budget, President Obama pointed to the flaws of the military establishment, “We save money by eliminating unnecessary defense programs that do nothing to keep us safe.  One example is the $2.5 billion that we're spending to build C-17 transport aircraft.  Four years ago, the Defense Department decided to cease production because it had acquired the number requested — 180.  Yet every year since, Congress had provided unrequested money for more C-17s that the Pentagon doesn't want or need.  It's waste, pure and simple.” The argument of the military establishment was that we cannot cease making the Boeing C-17, even if we don’t need or want more of them, because it would take too long to ramp up production should they be needed in the future. The continued funding of the C-17 is an example of the military establishment’s influence in Congress.

In his January 29, 2010 Editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Vice President Biden wrote of the nuclear weapons complex of the military establishment saying, “For as long as nuclear weapons are required to defend our country and our allies, we will maintain a safe, secure and effective nuclear arsenal. The president's Prague vision is central to this administration's efforts to protect the American people—and that is why we are increasing investments in our nuclear arsenal and infrastructure in this year's budget and beyond.” The administration proposes to add $5 billion to stockpile and delivery system stewardship. The reasons for maintaining a nuclear weapons arsenal return to the Eisenhower era and the notion of deterrence.

So what does this talk about the military establishment and infrastructure mean for Iowans? Eisenhower provided an answer, “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.” Iowans must be that alert and knowledgeable citizenry.
 
The discussion over national security in Washington is as heated and partisan as ever. According to the Wall Street Journal article on February 3, Russia and the United States are close to agreement on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START). Once the treaty is signed by Obama and Medvedev, the partisan politics can be expected to begin. On one side will be Senator Jon Kyl and the conservatives questioning the administration’s negotiations, centered on parity and verification. On the other we can expect Vice President Biden and Senator John Kerry to lead an effort to win the 67 votes needed for ratification. It will be this way on START. It will be this way on every national security initiative of the Obama administration.

To resolve the issue of partisan politics, Iowans must understand that in addition to being “scary,” national security has its roots in the actions of people like us. It is up to Iowans to petition Senators Grassley and Harkin on issues related to defense, nuclear proliferation and the entire military establishment.

The partisan nature of the Senate makes every Senator’s vote an important one. Our willingness to speak out to our Senators on national security issues may be our last, best hope for living without the fears engendered by the powerful interests at work behind the military establishment.

~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County.  Check
out his blog, Big Grove Garden.
   E-mail Paul Deaton