New Look by Dwight D. Eisenhower Lyrics
98 - Address at the Annual Convention of the National Junior Chamber of Commerce, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
June 10, 1953
Now, let's look at something very clearly. How many planes, how many divisions, how great a Navy should we have? Such questions are, these days, earnestly and fervently debated by advocates of different theories, as well as a fair number of self-appointed experts.
Now all this is healthy and proper enough, provided we do not lose sight of certain elemental facts.
First: we must remember always that reasonable defense posture is not won by juggling magic numbers--even with an air of great authority. There is no wonderfully sure number of planes or ships or divisions, or billions of dollars, that can automatically guarantee security. Could I pause long enough to say, in all of this I hope you will not forget the security of the United States is found first in the heart--in the heart of youth. Not only the heart of the man who has been or can be called to put on the uniform, in the heart of the grandmother, and of the child, that dedication and devotion to those great human rights for which our country and other free countries have stood.
If we never lose sight of those great values, nor our devotion and dedication to them, we have achieved the first problem of national security.
Now, the most uncompromising advocates of these magic numbers have themselves changed their calculations almost from year to year. Such changes are reasonable, as technological advance requires. But the insistence that the latest change is final, definitive, sacred--that is not reasonable.
Second: we must remember that all our plans must realistically take account--not just this year but every year--of colossal and continuing technological change. We are living in a time of revolutionary military science. Today 25 aircraft equipped with modern weapons can in a single attack visit upon an enemy as much explosive violence as was hurled at Germany by our entire air effort throughout 4 years of World War II. And those of you here who belonged to the Eighth and the Ninth and the Twelfth and the Fifteenth know what that was.
And a third serious truth about our defense is this: there is no such thing as maximum military security short of total mobilization. Now, this total mobilization would mean regimentation of the worker, the farmer, the businessman--allocation of materials-control of wages and prices--drafting of every able-bodied citizen. It would mean, in short, all the grim paraphernalia of the garrison state.
This would do more damage than merely to strain the economic fabric of America.
It would, if long sustained, imperil the very liberties we are striving to defend.
And it would ignore the most fundamental truth of all, one to which I have already alluded--the fact that this total struggle cannot be won by guns alone.
I do not believe, in a word, that we can wisely subscribe to what I would call the "all-out" military theory of defense--ignoring the other defenses of the heart and mind, and of our economy, that we must build and hold.
There is another theory of defense, another oversimplified concept, which I believe equally misleading and dangerous. It is what we might call the "fortress" theory of defense.
Advocates of this theory ask: "Why cannot the strongest nation in the world--our country--stand by itself? What does the United Nations matter? And particularly in Asia, where so many of our sons have died in freedom's name, why cannot we make our own decisions, fight and stand as only we ourselves may choose?"
There are many answers, of which I will give you a few.
A total struggle--let us never forget it--calls for total defense. As there is no weapon too small, no arena too remote, to be ignored, there is no free nation too humble to be forgotten. All of us have learned--first from the onslaught of Nazi aggression, then from Communist aggression--that all free nations must stand together or they shall fall separately. Again and again we must remind ourselves that this is a matter not only of political principle but of economic necessity. It involves our need for markets for our agricultural and industrial products, our need to receive in return from the rest of the world such essentials as manganese and cobalt, tin and tungsten, without which our economy cannot function.
This essential, indispensable unity means working together-always within a clearly defined, clearly understood framework of principle. We know the need of working together, in harmony with basic principles, within our own Nation. It is the essence of the democratic process. We should not be surprised that it applies just as vitally among nations--in the wide community of the world's free peoples.
How, where, can there be retreat from this unity? Surrender Asia? That would mean leaving a vast portion of the population of the entire world to be mobilized by the forces of aggression. Surrender Europe? That would mean more than doubling the industrial power of those same forces.
Who is there who thinks that the strength of America is so great, its burdens so easy, its future so secure, that it could make so generous a gift to those challenging our very lives?
And very important, there is no such thing as partial unity. That is a contradiction in terms.
We cannot select those areas of the globe in which our policies or wishes may differ from our allies--build political fences around these areas--and then say to our allies: "We shall do what we want here--and where you do what we want, there and only there shall we favor unity." That is not unity. It is an attempted dictation. And it is not the way free men associate.
We all hear, in this connection, a good deal of unhappy murmuring about the United Nations. It is easy to understand this dismay. None of us is above irritation and frustration over the seemingly vain and tedious processes of political discourse, particularly in times of great crisis.
But none of us can tightly forget that neither the world--nor the United Nations--is or can be made in a single image of one nation's will or ideas. The fact is that from its foundation the United Nations has seemed to be two distinct things to the two worlds divided by the iron curtain. To the Communist world it has been a convenient sounding board for their propaganda, a weapon to be exploited in spreading disunity and confusion. To the free world it has seemed that it should be a constructive forum for free discussion of the world's problems, an effective agency for helping to solve those problems peacefully.
But the truth is that even if the United Nations were to conform to the concept held by the free nations, it would still be bound to show infinite variety of opinion, sharp clashes of debate, slow movement to decision. For all this is little more than a reflection of the state of the world itself. An image of perfect symmetry would be a distorted image--the false creation of some nation's or some bloc's power-politics. And perhaps one of the greatest values of the United Nations is this: it holds up a mirror in which the world can see its true self. And what should we want to see in such a mirror but the whole truth at such a time of total struggle?
There are, as you see, certain common denominators to all that I have said, certain constant thoughts I believe to be consistently relevant in facing tomorrow.
We must see clearly that all the problems before us--from farm exports to balanced budgets, from taxes to the vital resources for our industry--all are dependent on our Nation's security. And in this real way freedom's great struggle touches all of us alike-farmer and businessman, worker and student, pastor and teacher.
We know this to be true because we know that there is but one struggle for freedom--in the market place and in the university, on the battlefield and beside the assembly line.
We know that strength means being strong in all these ways and in all these places.
We know that unity means comradeship, patience, and compromise among all free nations.
And we know that only with strength and with unity--is the future of freedom assured. And freedom, now and for the future, is our goal!
And now, my friends, before I leave you, I should like to give to you an announcement that came to me just as I left my airplane.
There was a telegram came from the East, that said that Senator Taft had announced that his physical condition has become so serious that he has had to give up his active duties as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate.
I am sure that you would allow me to speak for you--indeed, I have already ventured to do so, I think, in a telegram I just sent, saying that as his active duties as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate.
I am sure that you would allow me to speak for you--indeed, I have already ventured to do so, I think, in a telegram I just sent, saying that as he well knew, that we could not spare such patriotic and devoted service as his, and sent him our prayers for his early recovery.
Thank you very much indeed.
June 10, 1953
Now, let's look at something very clearly. How many planes, how many divisions, how great a Navy should we have? Such questions are, these days, earnestly and fervently debated by advocates of different theories, as well as a fair number of self-appointed experts.
Now all this is healthy and proper enough, provided we do not lose sight of certain elemental facts.
First: we must remember always that reasonable defense posture is not won by juggling magic numbers--even with an air of great authority. There is no wonderfully sure number of planes or ships or divisions, or billions of dollars, that can automatically guarantee security. Could I pause long enough to say, in all of this I hope you will not forget the security of the United States is found first in the heart--in the heart of youth. Not only the heart of the man who has been or can be called to put on the uniform, in the heart of the grandmother, and of the child, that dedication and devotion to those great human rights for which our country and other free countries have stood.
If we never lose sight of those great values, nor our devotion and dedication to them, we have achieved the first problem of national security.
Now, the most uncompromising advocates of these magic numbers have themselves changed their calculations almost from year to year. Such changes are reasonable, as technological advance requires. But the insistence that the latest change is final, definitive, sacred--that is not reasonable.
Second: we must remember that all our plans must realistically take account--not just this year but every year--of colossal and continuing technological change. We are living in a time of revolutionary military science. Today 25 aircraft equipped with modern weapons can in a single attack visit upon an enemy as much explosive violence as was hurled at Germany by our entire air effort throughout 4 years of World War II. And those of you here who belonged to the Eighth and the Ninth and the Twelfth and the Fifteenth know what that was.
And a third serious truth about our defense is this: there is no such thing as maximum military security short of total mobilization. Now, this total mobilization would mean regimentation of the worker, the farmer, the businessman--allocation of materials-control of wages and prices--drafting of every able-bodied citizen. It would mean, in short, all the grim paraphernalia of the garrison state.
This would do more damage than merely to strain the economic fabric of America.
It would, if long sustained, imperil the very liberties we are striving to defend.
And it would ignore the most fundamental truth of all, one to which I have already alluded--the fact that this total struggle cannot be won by guns alone.
I do not believe, in a word, that we can wisely subscribe to what I would call the "all-out" military theory of defense--ignoring the other defenses of the heart and mind, and of our economy, that we must build and hold.
There is another theory of defense, another oversimplified concept, which I believe equally misleading and dangerous. It is what we might call the "fortress" theory of defense.
Advocates of this theory ask: "Why cannot the strongest nation in the world--our country--stand by itself? What does the United Nations matter? And particularly in Asia, where so many of our sons have died in freedom's name, why cannot we make our own decisions, fight and stand as only we ourselves may choose?"
There are many answers, of which I will give you a few.
A total struggle--let us never forget it--calls for total defense. As there is no weapon too small, no arena too remote, to be ignored, there is no free nation too humble to be forgotten. All of us have learned--first from the onslaught of Nazi aggression, then from Communist aggression--that all free nations must stand together or they shall fall separately. Again and again we must remind ourselves that this is a matter not only of political principle but of economic necessity. It involves our need for markets for our agricultural and industrial products, our need to receive in return from the rest of the world such essentials as manganese and cobalt, tin and tungsten, without which our economy cannot function.
This essential, indispensable unity means working together-always within a clearly defined, clearly understood framework of principle. We know the need of working together, in harmony with basic principles, within our own Nation. It is the essence of the democratic process. We should not be surprised that it applies just as vitally among nations--in the wide community of the world's free peoples.
How, where, can there be retreat from this unity? Surrender Asia? That would mean leaving a vast portion of the population of the entire world to be mobilized by the forces of aggression. Surrender Europe? That would mean more than doubling the industrial power of those same forces.
Who is there who thinks that the strength of America is so great, its burdens so easy, its future so secure, that it could make so generous a gift to those challenging our very lives?
And very important, there is no such thing as partial unity. That is a contradiction in terms.
We cannot select those areas of the globe in which our policies or wishes may differ from our allies--build political fences around these areas--and then say to our allies: "We shall do what we want here--and where you do what we want, there and only there shall we favor unity." That is not unity. It is an attempted dictation. And it is not the way free men associate.
We all hear, in this connection, a good deal of unhappy murmuring about the United Nations. It is easy to understand this dismay. None of us is above irritation and frustration over the seemingly vain and tedious processes of political discourse, particularly in times of great crisis.
But none of us can tightly forget that neither the world--nor the United Nations--is or can be made in a single image of one nation's will or ideas. The fact is that from its foundation the United Nations has seemed to be two distinct things to the two worlds divided by the iron curtain. To the Communist world it has been a convenient sounding board for their propaganda, a weapon to be exploited in spreading disunity and confusion. To the free world it has seemed that it should be a constructive forum for free discussion of the world's problems, an effective agency for helping to solve those problems peacefully.
But the truth is that even if the United Nations were to conform to the concept held by the free nations, it would still be bound to show infinite variety of opinion, sharp clashes of debate, slow movement to decision. For all this is little more than a reflection of the state of the world itself. An image of perfect symmetry would be a distorted image--the false creation of some nation's or some bloc's power-politics. And perhaps one of the greatest values of the United Nations is this: it holds up a mirror in which the world can see its true self. And what should we want to see in such a mirror but the whole truth at such a time of total struggle?
There are, as you see, certain common denominators to all that I have said, certain constant thoughts I believe to be consistently relevant in facing tomorrow.
We must see clearly that all the problems before us--from farm exports to balanced budgets, from taxes to the vital resources for our industry--all are dependent on our Nation's security. And in this real way freedom's great struggle touches all of us alike-farmer and businessman, worker and student, pastor and teacher.
We know this to be true because we know that there is but one struggle for freedom--in the market place and in the university, on the battlefield and beside the assembly line.
We know that strength means being strong in all these ways and in all these places.
We know that unity means comradeship, patience, and compromise among all free nations.
And we know that only with strength and with unity--is the future of freedom assured. And freedom, now and for the future, is our goal!
And now, my friends, before I leave you, I should like to give to you an announcement that came to me just as I left my airplane.
There was a telegram came from the East, that said that Senator Taft had announced that his physical condition has become so serious that he has had to give up his active duties as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate.
I am sure that you would allow me to speak for you--indeed, I have already ventured to do so, I think, in a telegram I just sent, saying that as his active duties as the leader of the Republican Party in the Senate.
I am sure that you would allow me to speak for you--indeed, I have already ventured to do so, I think, in a telegram I just sent, saying that as he well knew, that we could not spare such patriotic and devoted service as his, and sent him our prayers for his early recovery.
Thank you very much indeed.