The dislike is for the influence, not the existence of a military industry. See Eisenhower's original speech:
> we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.
Eisenhower realized that we were crossing a threshold where the US would need a specialized military industry and equipment stockpiles, where you couldn't just mobilize and convert civilian production to military production over the course of 2-3 years anymore like we did in WWII. Should war with the USSR break out, things were going to move too fast for that to be viable, and you simply couldn't take your eye off the ball with respect to developing new technologies either.
The military industrial complex during the Cold War is like the tech giants in the 2010s. Everybody understands their importance, and yet you still have to be vigilant about letting them leverage that into too much political power. That's the point he was trying to get across. The MIC would be highly necessary, but vigilance was required to avoid letting their interests push the government around.
> The dislike is for the influence, not the existence of a military industry.
While true, this feels like a difference without a distinction. It's like saying "We don't want something humans always do, without fail, but we want humans."
a) that was noted European socialist Dwight D Eisenhower's phrase
b) the entire history of Europe from before the first world war (+) has been tied up with industrialized war. It was sufficiently awful that great steps have been taken to move away from it. The US tried to keep a balance between "preventing the USSR from invading Germany further" vs "preventing Germany from invading everywhere again".
Well, now we want one.