Darrell Castle: Is the Cold War Back On?

by Darrell Castle
Constitution Party Vice-Chairman

This is the week of the 50th anniversary of President Eisenhower’s famous speech in which he warned the nation to beware of what he called “the military industrial complex.” He was talking about the military leaders joining with leaders of the arms industry for the purpose of expanding their budgets in order to line their own pockets and greatly expand their power over American foreign policy.

President Eisenhower probably remembered the end of WWII, just 15 years before his speech, when the United States stood at the top of world power as no nation had ever stood before. With 12 million men under arms, the only nation with nuclear weapons and a proven disposition to use them, with Europe in ruins and the Soviet Union with millions of dead, who could challenge the United States?

But challenged we were: just five years later we were at war again in Korea, and the Soviet Union also had nuclear weapons. By the time of President Eisenhower’s speech in 1960, we were in a life or death struggle with the Soviet Union for global supremacy. Those of us who lived through that time remember the “missile gap” and the constant stories of how much better Soviet weapons were than ours and how if we didn’t fund, fund, fund, and build, build, build, our civilization would be dead, dead, dead. The entire “free world” depended on the American taxpayer.

The Soviet Union remained a faithful partner in the game until it finally imploded in 1989, but as luck would have it, Islamic fundamentalism was there to pick up the ball and carry it. Twenty years of fighting Islamic fundamentalism have certainly been rewarding for the players, but fighting a bunch of primitive people who live in caves and hovels makes it hard to justify building very many $350 million dollar plus (research and development factored in) F-22 Raptors, especially when the nation is bankrupt. The F-22 production line was, therefore, shut down after 187 were built.

Permanent war fighting has its own set of rewards, but it just doesn’t create the same zeal as a real big iron showdown against a legitimate technologically advanced country. For a short time it looked as if the players of “the great game,” as Zbigniew Brzezinski called it, would have to adjust to only permanent war against Islamic fundamentalism, but they are clever and resourceful.

Lo and behold, along comes China with the J-20 stealth fighter. We are told that China got its stealth technology from Russia which got it from us, but we are also told that most Russian technological systems are junk right now from lack of funding. China debuted its new fighter aircraft just in time for the summit between Chinese President Hu Jintao and U.S. President Barack Obama and at about the same time that China announced it was moving troops into North Korea. Oh how lucky can one group of people get! Look for the F-22 line to start up any day now, and, in addition, we have the Chinese in Korea again just like 50 years ago.

Well, it will be extremely interesting to see how President Obama handles the summit with China. I am confident that he will handle it as well as he did the START talks with the Russians. The “great game” goes on, but if the dollar loses its reserve status, as now appears inevitable, the players will have to find a way to pay for all their big iron.

– Darrell Castle

8 thoughts on “Darrell Castle: Is the Cold War Back On?

  1. FYI! [More Don Lake]

    Could not agree one word more.

    Peace full nations, even when quietly tending their own empire [USA, Holland, Belgium] are caught between more aggressive neighbors.

    As far as weapons development, it is a big world out there.

    Around 1800 the Portuguese offered to rent the Iberian war fleet.

    The B. A. R. [Browning Automatic Rifle, basically a sturdy ‘light’ machine gun] was a factor in both WWI and WWII, by it’s absence.

    Authorities were afraid of the specs falling into others machine shops.

    The mediocre P 51 Fighter development could have been killed at any time in the 1930s. With the ‘big front’ radial engine, the ‘Mustang’ was a good but not great single seater.

    Stream lined [like the front seat, back seat ‘Apache’ Helicopter] and with the in line magical ‘Merlin’ motor, it ruled the sky until the jets dominated.

  2. wolfefan

    I’m interested to see Darrell Castle approvingly quoting DDE. I don’t know about Mr. Castle particularly, but I know a many CP members, including Chuck Baldwin, have friendly relations with the John Birch Society. Robert Welch, Cleon Skousen (Glen Beck’s major influence) and lots of JBS folks believed Ike was a communist agent.

  3. FYI! [More Don Lake]

    Reform Party USA agent provocateur Virginia Brooks is cheek to jowl with JBS in Ohio.

    Back story. B4 Lake and Company took over the Pf P USA print monthly from the Texas Media Mafia of Sandra Madison and Beverly Kennedy in mid decade, Brooks ‘stall balled’ the news letter while working day and night on the JBS related ‘New Frontier’ organ.

    She also grabbed her wooden shoes [‘sabots’] to use against Nader P2004. She also derailed the summer 2004 Rf P USA national convention. And the $900 ‘seed’ money ……..

    [probably went into the NFC rag ……….]

  4. Mark Seidenberg

    I was a student in Eisenhower Hall at the Indurstrial College of the Armed Forces. I am
    a life member of its association.

    Ike approved Operation Keelhaul. Don’t give any honors to Eisenhower.

    Sincerely, Mark Seidenberg
    Vice Chairman, American Independent Party

  5. Red Phillips

    I am encouraged by this essay. Howard Phillips, being a prime player in the Cold War conservative movement, has always seemed to me to have one foot remaining in the “strong national defense” mindset and still invested in the “three legs of the stool” conception of the conservative coalition. While he has been right on non-interventionism since Buchanan and was invaluable in heading off the Alan Keyes coup of the CP, Phillips still uses a lot of strong defense rhetoric that I think is unhelpful in advancing non-interventionism.

    This essay, while carefully worded, seems to indicate a healthy suspiciousness about the claims of those who would have us fear alleged threats and seems to imply that the motive for hyping these alleged threats might be finacial on the part of the “defense” industry.

    Could this represent a change in direction for the CP or an acknowledgement of who their actual base is? The tendency to see the potential Constitution Party coalition as a mirror image of the current conservative coalition just moreso (differing by degree more than kind) has always seemed to me to cause the CP to have a mixed message on defense. If one embraces non-interventionism as an idea, then it becomes harder and harder to embrace a “strong national defense” as it is traditionally conceived (a 500 ship navy or whatever) because non-interventionism inevitable raises the question of strong enough to do what?

    I’m going to flesh this out a little and write something up more formal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *