3 ms·

I must confess...I detest the phrase military-industrial complex while acknowledging that it was likely defined and definitely used by people much smarter than

by jnsie 3y ago

I must confess...I detest the phrase military-industrial complex while acknowledging that it was likely defined and definitely used by people much smarter than I. It's too abstract and sounds like a phrase your tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy-theorist uncle would rant about. Would much rather we spoke in terms of real-world organizations (start with the big players and go from there) that benefit from forever wars...

karaterobot 3y ago
The specific players change, though. You wouldn't call it (for example) the "Reagan-Raytheon Complex", since that's just a specific, temporary instance produced by a more systemic pattern of behavior. Even though the more specific framing seems more actionable, getting rid of those particular players would not solve the problem if the next set just did the same thing. So, it's actually more useful to think of this as a warning about systems rather than entities.
__MatrixMan__ 3y ago
I've been thinking that we ought to stop using county names to refer to wars. Vietnam is a place, people live there, but when I hear its name I just think about how messed up my grandpa is because of his experiences in that war. So I think that instead of "Afghanistan" we should call it "Lockheed's War" or something like that.
- all2 3y ago
  And Iraq would the be the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton War. I'm a fan of this naming convention.
- goodpoint 3y ago
  War? Product placement campaign.
- jnsie 3y ago
  I'm not sure if you're being serious but I like this a lot
  - __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
    Totally serious. If we must have wars, let them be remembered as a black mark on the names of the people who profited from them. A cautionary tale about how not to weild power. On the flip side: I have no ill will towards the people of Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam, so I feel bad attaching a negative connotation to the name of their country. As if my tax dollars didn't do enough harm to their homes, now my speech is making it harder to let go of. Yuck. I've been saying things like: > The justification for Putin's war feels even flimsier than the justification for Cheney's war, but then again I'm not the target audience. So far people just raise their eyebrows at me, but I like to imagine it'll catch on.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Its a massive oversimplification driven by pessimism.
rufus_foreman 3y ago
>> It's too abstract and sounds like a phrase your tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy-theorist uncle would rant about That's why it was so important that it come from someone like a 5 star general and Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II. No one was going to mistake Eisenhower for a tinfoil-hat wearer, a pacifist, or an appeaser.
- jnsie 3y ago
  While I completely agree I'm not sure how well known its origins are today, or will be in the future.

by jnsie 3y ago

karaterobot 3y ago

The specific players change, though. You wouldn't call it (for example) the "Reagan-Raytheon Complex", since that's just a specific, temporary instance produced by a more systemic pattern of behavior. Even though the more specific framing seems more actionable, getting rid of those particular players would not solve the problem if the next set just did the same thing. So, it's actually more useful to think of this as a warning about systems rather than entities.

__MatrixMan__ 3y ago

I've been thinking that we ought to stop using county names to refer to wars. Vietnam is a place, people live there, but when I hear its name I just think about how messed up my grandpa is because of his experiences in that war. So I think that instead of "Afghanistan" we should call it "Lockheed's War" or something like that.

all2 3y ago
And Iraq would the be the Bush/Cheney/Haliburton War. I'm a fan of this naming convention.
goodpoint 3y ago
War? Product placement campaign.
jnsie 3y ago
I'm not sure if you're being serious but I like this a lot
- __MatrixMan__ 3y ago
  Totally serious. If we must have wars, let them be remembered as a black mark on the names of the people who profited from them. A cautionary tale about how not to weild power. On the flip side: I have no ill will towards the people of Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam, so I feel bad attaching a negative connotation to the name of their country. As if my tax dollars didn't do enough harm to their homes, now my speech is making it harder to let go of. Yuck. I've been saying things like: > The justification for Putin's war feels even flimsier than the justification for Cheney's war, but then again I'm not the target audience. So far people just raise their eyebrows at me, but I like to imagine it'll catch on.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Its a massive oversimplification driven by pessimism.

rufus_foreman 3y ago

>> It's too abstract and sounds like a phrase your tinfoil-hat wearing conspiracy-theorist uncle would rant about That's why it was so important that it come from someone like a 5 star general and Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force in Europe during World War II. No one was going to mistake Eisenhower for a tinfoil-hat wearer, a pacifist, or an appeaser.

jnsie 3y ago
While I completely agree I'm not sure how well known its origins are today, or will be in the future.