His real admonishment was directed at academia.
************
Why then does he refer to ‘military’ nine times in his address and ‘research’ only four times?
He also cites the “immense military establishment and a large arms industry” noting that we must comprehend the total influence and “grave implications” of same.
His notes may indicate a concern with academia but the actual address does not seem to reflect much of that since it was only mentioned half as much as the defense industry was.
Moreover (and to one of your points) hostility toward the defense industry was not the issue. Rather it was about a well founded concern about its “unwarranted influence”.
From my initial PhD thesis proposal:
The defense industry/international arms trade via government-run foreign military sales (FMS) is not well understood. FMS is oft-times misrepresented in popular media and through agenda-driven reporting/monitoring organizations. Consequently, many people are unaware of the driving forces behind FMS and usually associate FMS with unrealistic but entertaining fantasy or simply object to such activities altogether. The subject is further confused by a myriad of Executive Branch FMS bureaucratic processes, laws, vague regulations, as well Congress.
President Eisenhower’s 1961 (often taken out of context) “military industrial complex” speech contributes to an enduring negative view of the defense industry. Indeed, President Eisenhower’s speech is cited as a warning about the defense industry and its growing influence among the “councils of government.” However, in context, President Eisenhower did not “warn” about the defense industry, he acknowledged the need for a robust defense industry and called on informed citizenry and politicos to “recognize the imperative need for this development.” (The “development” referred to a healthy defense industry). Consequently, far from condemning the defense industry, he was recognizing its vital role in advancing US political, economic and military goals.
I go on to write:
Oft times elected officials, NGOs, academics, Hollywood and media, as well as the general public have a skewed impression as to the defense industry and FMS international arms trade; who controls what and, more importantly in my view, why. They generally think it is all about greed. This is not supported by evidence.
When contrasted with nations such as France, Russia, Ukraine, China, North Korea, etc., the US places (relatively) onerous restrictions on the use and transfers of US arms.
More of my comments/research:
The US defense industry and the US government work to ensure they operate within the law, as oversight and reporting requirements are many and in plain view (except for classified programs, they come under different laws and reporting requirements and are beyond the scope of this proposed research effort). Indeed, US international arms sales are severely restricted by the Foreign Assistance Act (FAA), section 505, and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), section 3 (22 U.S.C. 2753) and section 4 (22 U.S.C. 2754). Additional controls are defined in countless other policy manuals and service-specific instructions, as well as mandated in the sales contract—LOA.
More. . .
“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery and respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the EQUAL and opposite danger the public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. . .”
Comment:
I’ve worked in DoD where we worked with the defense industry. Also upon retirement, I worked for the defense industry. I found much ignorance about FMS and the defense industry. It seems “everyone” feels like they know what goes on in the defense industry, but what “they” know, they don’t really know, and with hollywood and TV making movies advancing nonsense, it is filling minds with conspiracy and sneaky wrong-doings when in fact, the defense industry is a very transparent process and most who work in the defense industry have friends and family still serving so they don’t push for wars because they have a personal stake at risk. Thus my motivation to pursue my PhD in International Relations, focused to the Defense Industry and Foreign Military Sales.