Bill,
Of course I do. They are fulfilling government's primary raison d' etre, doing what it can to keep the people safe. You may find it hard to believe, but I am much closer to Ron Paul than either of the Bushes when it comes to issues of foreign policy and military action. Unfortunately, other than that he played a lot of golf at ANGC and presided over a relatively calm time, I don't really know that much about Eisenhower.
I did work for a couple years for the top U.S. defense contractor coming out of grad school, and though I had a considerable view and access all the way to corporate headquarters as well as into several layers of U.S. and foreign military staff, I did not see evidence of an evil, self-promoting military-industrial complex. The people who I knew were primarily concerned with their defined missions which, for the most part, were directed by civiian/political management. Conflicts of interest are hardly unique in any industry, and perhaps President Eisenhower was, in part, trying to establish some non-military bonafides with this statement.
I am not a cut and run type- I detest how we left Viet Nam-, so now that we're in those two theatres, we need to complete the mission. I do disagree with you that Afg is unwinnable, but we also probably disagree on what constitutes victory (not the establishment of democracy or nation building, but dealing a near-mortal blow to the Taliban and other terrorist groups there so they are unable to reconstitute and attack).
As you might guess, I admire Churchill but not Chamberlain. I believe histroy shows that maintaining a well-prepared and equipped fighting force is a far superior approach to pursuing and maintaining peace than disarmament and appeasement. I do agree with you that we must "bring 'em home" as soon as it is possible.
Happy New Year.