Eisenhower Was Right.

By now, everyone should know of President Eisenhower's farewell address in 1961, which warned of a military-industrial complex.

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 alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations -- corporations.

Now 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 Statehouse, 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.

Of course, that has long since come to pass, especially with the long-term GOP campaign to gut the Federal work force and turn it over to private contractors, which has not been shown to save any money (quite the opposite).

So it should come as no surprise that the same mega-corporations who are part of the complex are now able to use the Federal government as their overseas marketing agents.

Yet it is not as simple as all that. The French government, among others (Spain, Germany and the UK), operates as a global sales force for Airbus, so it is probably naive to expect that our government wouldn't do the same for Boeing, given that sales of Boeing airliners makes up a significant chunk of U.S. exports. On the other hand, Rolls-Royce (British) and CFM (50% owned by Snecma, a French engine maker) are some of the suppliers of engines for Boeing aircraft while GE (both by itself and as a 50% owner or CFM) and Pratt & Whitney both make engines for Airbus aircraft.

So while the New York Times story is an interesting bit of information as to how hard our government works to help sell Boeing jets, I don't believe that anyone should be too surprised by it.