Must read. Was told to read it by a former Army pilot. Been telling everyone to read it since.
Reading the comments below, I come to understand that many are missing the point of the essay, or speech as it was intended originally.
For modern readers, Butler's words are not to be taken directly but in context. Butler's point is that war is a racket. That is it. Funny right. If you are to ignore all the details about the casualties and who said what and who did what, you are still left with the essence of the speech. War is a racket. Repeat after me :) If you instill the mindset that war is a racket then all the pieces fall into place. It becomes very clear that war has no regard for human life. That it is detached from reality of life and death.
"Eliot A. Cohen, an official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that Mr. Obama’s trips to Walter Reed may have been the reason, and that future presidents should avoid such visits.
“A president has to be psychologically prepared to send people into harm’s way and to get a good night’s sleep,” Mr. Cohen said. “And anything they do that might cripple them that way means they’re not doing their job.”" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama-walter-r...
"they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what?
Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up.
Additionally, presidents should visit hospitals in Syria maybe. Maybe then they will not make the same actions.
> "they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what?
At some point, a US president may need to send soldiers into a situation in which they will very likely die, in order to win a war. It has happened before, and it may happen again. If the president allows visits to wounded veterans to weaken his resolve, the consequences could be very bad. That's what Eliot Cohen is alluding to. He is not suggesting that the president should not care -- he is suggesting that the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens.
> Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up.
Nobody suggested that the president should not worry about the lives of soldiers. Your interpretation is unreasonably uncharitable and is in fact a straw man.
> the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens
Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake.
Sometimes, the greatest things a leader / president can do, is to acknowledge that he was (we were) wrong. However, pride prevents that. Once you decided to enter a war, you are entirely focused on winning it.
Carrying out and enforcing immoral laws makes you as much of a criminal as anybody.
The police state doesn't carry out showy public executions like the cartels do, but they have ruined many people's lives for no good reason and they have put plenty of otherwise innocent people in a grave.
And guess what? The American people pay for both sides. They pay for the cartels and they pay for the police state.
If the war on drugs never existed there wouldn't be any cartels in the first place. It's pure idiocy compounded with greed and profiteering on other people's misery.
You can't have the one of the highest percentage of the population in prison and call yourself a free country. It's bold faced contradiction. The USA beats out Turkmenistan FFS.
> The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight
Debatable. The police men / DEA involved probably feel like soldiers sometimes. The drug lords and governments in south america certainly have soldiers involved.
They're being trained to think of themselves as soldiers. This will inevitably lead to them being soldiers, and that eventually ends in bog-standard straightforward war, indistinguishable from any waged by "real" soldiers.
Most soldiers throughout history were not career soldiers or warriors. Most are people brought into the conflict without any intent to be a soldier before whatever brought them in.
Vietnam is a great example that proves original OP right, actually. We should have never been in that war. It was a main driving force in the anti-war attitude of the 60s and 70s.
I like to think he was being slightly facetious asking what their job is -- like he's saying, "their job is to keep the racket going" which I agree with. He's saying "a president should not be worried.." in the context of a racket. I doubt a legitimate threat to humanity would stop a president or the people from going after it. That's just obvious and not really worth discussing.
What war ? That's the war Butler is talking about. There's no winning or loosing endgame in that kind of war, because the most positive (for the initiators) is being done with prolonging it.
I suppose this can be understood in the context where the entire fate of a nation actually depends on the president being able to sleep well and do what is needed. There have been instances in world history were this has been the case for various nations. Not so often for US in past centuries, though.
That a president should be a callous bastard and just do what's good for the military industrial complex sounds pretty insane.
There are three kinds of wars. It's right in the first paragraph of the article:
> There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
If the president needs to win a war to defend our homes or for the Bill of Rights, then (according to this reasoning) they should not go to Walter Reed. War is usually a racket, yes, but it's hard to know exactly when the cure is worse than the disease. Probably is right now, sure, but the Revolutionary War? Civil War? Fought for economic reasons, yes, but also for some correct reasons.
i say this for several reasons. One, Smedley D Butler is one of perhaps just three former US Marines universally regarded as demi-gods (the other two are Sgt. Dan Daly and Gen. Chesty Puller). Their official photographs are everywhere, and statement alleged to have been made by them are quoted like scripture among active duty marines. Gen Butler aside from attaining the rank of major general, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor--twice. (Sgt. Daly, my personal hero, had two as well and a Navy Cross, the second-highest award in the USMC, equivalent to the Army's DSC; Chesty had no MoH, just five Navy Crosses, which is still pretty good).
So here he is at the end of his superb 33-year career, writing a book in which he declares that war is a Racket. And by "Racket" he is clearly using the term in the precise sense: "[a] service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist."--in other words, what organized crime does.
> "Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints."
from the OP (a except from the Book, which in turn was based on a speech given by Butler two years prior): "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers."
Needless to say, i never heard about this book while serving in the USMC as a Sergeant.
second, this book was published in 1935--Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II.
I thought this was well understood as well as documented? For example, Chomsky has been speaking about this for decades and his message seems to be fact based.
At least as a non-US citizen, the only war I'm happy about US participated was WW2[0]. This is not to say anything about the mere military pressure US has applied but only of active campaigns. Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.
As a professional soldier, if you can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall street (or domino theorists in Washington) I will gladly do research on them.
[0] (for not allowing Soviet Union to dominate Europe - although, a great portion of their war effort was fought with US supplies so maybe third reich and Soviet Union would have just beaten each other to death).
Domino theory wasn't just an abstract concept that artificially created conflict. Every country involved in the domino theory (Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, Burma, and India) experienced conflict due to the massive shift in political power after WW2 when the former colonial powers started to withdraw.
It's too simplistic to assume that any western involvement in these countries was purely at the behest of Wall Street or due to the perceived threat of communism and had nothing to do with the internal conflicts created by years of colonial rule. The ruling class in nearly every one of these countries was more than happy to have continued military and economic support from the west as they fought their own civil wars.
Communism was also not a benign form of government - millions died due to purges and famine caused by communist theories of central management etc. Again, it is far too simplistic to assume that the motivation of western nations were purely economic.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that economic interests were not a critical component of why the west was involved but I do think it is far too easy to ignore the complexity of these conflicts for the sake of a convenient "the west is only involved to make money" narrative.
> Communism was also not a benign form of government - millions died due to purges and famine caused by communist theories of central management etc. Again, it is far too simplistic to assume that the motivation of western nations were purely economic.
This is dangerously naive, "communism" had almost nothing to do with the genocide(s) that Stalin purposefully perpetrated for political and economic reasons.
Just your daily reminder that communism is not a form of government, Soviet Russia did not have the requisite indicators of a communist society (many would argue it wasn't even socialist), and that the only ideology Stalin believed in was Russian nationalism.
> This is dangerously naive, "communism" had almost nothing to do with the genocide(s) that Stalin purposefully perpetrated for political and economic reasons.
"The Three Years of Difficulty or Great Leap Forward Famine, was a period in the People's Republic of China between the years 1959 and 1961 characterized by widespread famine. Drought, poor weather, and the policies of the Communist Party of China contributed to the famine, although the relative weights of the contributions are disputed due to the Great Leap Forward."
"The reasons for the famine are a subject of scholarly and political debate. Some scholars suggest that the man-made famine was a consequence of the economic problems associated with changes implemented during the period of Soviet industrialisation. Collectivisation also contributed to famine in 1932. "
My home country, South Korea, has benefitted from our interests being aligned with those of "domino theorists in Washington". There is now a country of ~50 million with a starkly different life from those in the north.
Hardly. I'm trying to have a discussion, not persuade anyone of my potentially faulty view of history. I was thinking of former Yogoslavia foremost when I added the UN sanctioned piece action.
Well, the Korean War _was_ a UN sanctioned peace action. Mostly by accident, because the USSR was boycotting the UN for a few months there and so failed to veto the resolution.
> can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall street (or domino theorists in Washington)
Let's see...
1) The First and Second Barbary Wars probably qualify, seeing as they predate both. But more to the point, I suspect they benefited lots of people outside of the US in general.
3) I assume you're not going to count the US Civil War?
4) Pretty sure the US involvement in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Rus... didn't benefit Wall Street, though it's not clear it really benefited anyone else, other than the Czechoslovak Legion, of course. Or would this count as a "UN sanctioned peace action" albeit in pre-UN days, given the number of countries involved?
5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis -- at first glance the US intervention prevented things degenerating into a more serious civil war. Or is this something that you think only benefited domino theorists?
8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Lebanon is a weird one, in that it's not clear that it really _benefited_ anyone in the end, but it was certainly not aiming to benefit domino theorists or Wall Street and as far as I can tell wasn't really UN-sanctioned, but was a peacekeeping mission.
9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada -- or are you going to call this something to benefit domino theorists? The outcome (democratic elections, the day of the invasion being considered a national holiday in Grenada now) suggests that maybe the Grenadans benefited. Note that this one was _condemned_ by the UN.
10) Intervention in Kosovo in 1998/9. This was not UN-sanctioned. Pretty sure neither Wall Street nor domino theorists (what dominos?) benefited.
> Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.
So just to be clear, specifically not counting the Korean War, the 1990-91 Gulf War, intervention in the Somali Civil War, intervention in Haiti in the mid-90s, Bosnia around the same time, Libya in 2011, right? Anything I missed?
Thanks! That's a great list of refences to go through. I actually wanted to have objective references and not just bash the US command. I should have placed more emphasis on the stabilizing US actions and not just sheath them under the "UN mandate" phrase. A few comments:
1) & 2) The anti-piracy operations were a nice example of a stabilizing strategy.
3) Civil wars are generally considered internal matters
5) & 8) - Yeah, post Ottoman Middle East is a major fuck up. No idea who benefitted whom there.
6) I have no familiarity with the matter but supporting anti-communist forces within a country would fall under the "dominoes..." template if I had to be brash about forming a quick opinion
7) That's tiny. Yeah, probably under "stabilizing action" just like 1,2. But, no idea really.
9) That's US security more than anything, they were afraid Cuba and Soviet Union would hold Grenada as a forward base - I have to call "dominoes" on that
Of the uncounted:
Korean war - while I'm sure South Korean prefer the current situation, having an economy boosted by vested US interests - from the point of view of US was about holding Soviet Union at bay. Dominoes.
Gulf war. Oil. Oil. Oil oil oil. Street.
Somali civil war was an attempt at a stabilizing action.
Bosnia- it's the stabilizing action for which I have to commend the US the most (and am stupefied to this day of the European incompetence in military matters).
What's interesting to me, and shouldn't be surprising, is that there are domino-theory wars like Korea that at least the South Koreans feel benefited them, and then there are domino-theory wars that didn't really benefit people much. And there are UN-sanctioned things that turned out well, and then there are things like Libya. And the hard part is telling up front which situation you're in...
Note that I left off a _long_ list of US military involvement that could not possibly be considered to benefit anything other than maybe US expansion or US business interests. I just listed the ones that might have fit your criteria.
Hearing Chomsky speak about anything coats an intellectual/abstract ring to it. Coming from an old time high rank military officer feels a lot different to me.
Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II
Yeah, it goes as far back as you like. This is a great thesis, but people are viewing it as presenting a dichotomy by focusing on one side of the equation.
War is a racket. It's also necessary at times. Both things are true. The reason why we don't keep standing armies around and create huge military-industrial complexes around war is that the racket side of things tends to take over.
Related is President (and 5 Star General) Eisenhower's speech warning against the military industrial complex in his Farewell Address. [1]
> In the councils of government, 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.
This speech is cited as the first use of the term "military-industrial complex".
I'll add "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", by a less well known author, which is along similar lines.[1]
It's interesting that Eisenhower and Butler blew the whistle essentially after their careers were over rather than in the middle of their careers. I guess one generally does not attain great heights in one's respective career by being the sort that doesn't want to play the game. It still speaks volumes that those who are masters of their games would turn whistleblowers at all, though -- even if at a rather late stage.
"I'll add "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", by a less well known author, which is along similar lines.[1]"
No, you don't need to read this - it's a book of mostly fiction, by an author who's perspective is lacking any integrity.
The book reads near fiction by almost anyone who knows anything about how the world works.
One of the major premises of the book is that the entirety of the World Bank, IMF and all their operatives exist to 'enslave' other countries. As proof he offers the fact that his consulting company urged him to fudge some data on how much energy would be needed by Indonesia, which was about to get a large loan to make an electricity plant.
I don't doubt for a second that a sales team, hoping to get a large contract would fudge the numbers. But anyone who has actually worked with people from these agencies knows how laughable it is they are conspirators - they are mostly socialists, leftists, NGO 'save Africa' types who want to spend their time helping poor people.
What happens is that deeply corrupt leaders accept multibillion dollar loans from the IMF to 'build a power plant' - which is supposed to facilitate energy as a critical layer in the industrial base, thereby enabling other parts of the economy.
But the leaders usually skim huge amounts of the top - thereby making it impossible for ROI from the get-go. Then they award the construction contracts to their cronies, who are not only corrupt, but incompetent, and it doesn't get built. Or - a western entity is hired, and it does get built - with maybe too much capacity. Or the project was poorly conceived in the first place (central planning is often a bad idea).
And the reality has completely vindicated the so-called corrupt entity pushing Perkins to 'fudge up' the amount of projected electricity usage in Indonesia - in reality - Indonesia eventually grew and consumed considerably more electricity than John Perkins had anticipated - even more than his 'fudged up' numbers.
Some Western companies profit hugely off of this (i.e. Siemens), but they're not usually implied in any real wrongdoing.
This type of dysfunction is obvious to anyone familiar with these themes.
John Perkins seriously misrepresents the issues and creates a fantasy/conspiracy tale for the well-meaning but misinformed masses.
John Perkins also literally believes that he is a Shaman and can literally transform himself int o his 'animal spirit' forms, i.e. Puma. He hints at it in a few books, and admits it in one specific interview. He has books called 'shapeshifting' which implore people to 'change their lives' to exist better with planet earth - which is good - but the 'shapeshifting' does take on a literal and completely absurd meaning at one point. He's completely deluded.
There are reasons to suspect the author's story as told. What stands out to me is that he really doesn't seem like the genius he portrays himself to be. It's possible but doesn't seem likely that a Business Administration BA with two years of Peace Corps experience would suddenly be recruited by the NSA to be an economic hitman for a shadowy consulting firm.
The firm fell apart 10 years later. The man who hired him (and later recanted some of his vague corroborations) was fired for insider trading and eventually ended up running a local Tuscon power company. His partner from his post-consulting enterprise (a power company of his own) admits they failed but that the author is a fun guy and full of ideas. This was followed by a pivot to writing books about shamanism, indigenous cultures and psychedelic experiences.
Of course, the NSA version could be true. But the circumstantial evidence offers a simpler explanation where the author is embellishing or inventing his own role and first-hand knowledge of how global economic structures and forces operate.
I don't want to discredit the macroeconomic skepticism. But I think there's a good chance this particular author is weaving things he's read about with things he's made up in his mind.
Fiction? Read a little 20th century history outside from countries outside of the US or talk to people there (Latin America would be a good example) and you'll find out it's anything but fiction in the general practices (if not in the specifics).
It's pretty well known that intelligence services and others placed female agents in positions to develop sexual relationships with men and women in order to get information and apply influence. Hell, US propaganda books and movies (The Green Berets) have featured women in this role as quasi-heroines.
I'm not asserting that the book is credible or not, I recall reading it a long time ago and honestly don't remember enough about it. But if the person is what he claimed to be, seems like the type of shenanigans that would take place.
Women (and men) are used (sexually) as agents all the time by government agencies.
"One former CIA officer said that while sexual entrapment wasn't generally a good tool to recruit a foreign official, it was sometimes employed successfully to solve short-term problems."
CIA actually sent agents posing as vaccination teams when the US was searching for Osama bin Laden, ruining polio eradication efforts in some places in the world. So no, sending fake economists is not beyond belief.
Because the CIA sends spies out into the field - that's what they do. Many large American corporations have offices overseas, often some of the 'workers' are CIA, they use sales jobs etc. as cover. Esp. in the Middle East.
The NSA does not have agents out in the field as we understand it. The NSA is mostly nerds, crypto, tech. They're not spies or agents.
But the author's claims of being seduced by an NSA (or even CIA) 'honeytrap' are not corroborated in any way by anyone. Given that he's on record as claiming he can 'transform' himself into a Puma (I mean literally), well, his credibility is a little too 'off' to accept uncorroborated stories.
Popular economics on both the left and the right is always some of betrayal narrative. Bad things happen in the economy because powerful figures betray us. There's a million stories, all different, that fit this theme. The far left and far right use strikingly similar stories about this with only slightly different language.
Naomi Klein's first book - 'No Logo' was quite good.
The 'Shock Doctrine' was kind of a mess.
What happens is that these authors become very famous by putting out a good book with an opinion.
Then, like a one-hit-wonder rock band, they are urged to publish more red-meat for their readers, who want to hear about how the world works in a certain way.
Though the 'Shock Doctrine' is not a work of almost fiction as is 'Economic Hitman' - the premise of the accusations are really, really shaky, in many cases absurd.
She's very unrealistic about most things, and recently indicated that the Canadian Postal Workers should double as nurses and visit people door-to-door (because hey, they already do that). Which is neat for a brainstormed idea but fails in so many ridiculous and obvious ways it's laughably absurd.
Since that book (Shock Doctrine), which by the way makes some reasonable points, but mostly not - she's become a 'book agitator', she can't be taken credibly.
I can understand how people could read the 'Shock Doctrine' and be upset, but it's the absent contextual information that is missing that ultimately makes these books in some ways 'misinformational'. There are a lot of facts - but they are highly, highly selective. Add to this - some of the actual bad things the USA has done in the past - and you get the allowance for someone to spin great conspiracy theories.
Klein lives in my neighbourhood BTW. I see her around :)
I can think of a couple of issues which might underlie the economic issues of South Africa and Russia: namely thee end of one party rule in both states.
There really was no 'collapse' of the South African economy - it's been growing rapidly since the end of apartheid. Just some chaos during the transition. Crime expanded quite a lot and it had nothing to do with 'neoliberalism'.
And both nations would have had to go a heavy and chaotic transitionary period.
To imply that it was part of some cabal of Western Imperialist 'Doctrine' is completely false.
There were a lot of resources up for grabs - and a lot of money ploughing in.
Naomi Klein is part of the reason I dropped supporting SJW/leftist causes by default, I'm pretty skeptical these days, I pick and chose.
There was a dramatic downturn in the South African economy after 1994, not a collapse like Russia but our industry took a huge knock, the Rand weaken dramatically, there was vast disinvestment and job losses. Yes there was growth, but like all neoliberal regimes it has gone to the wealthiest 1%. Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it was in 1994.
One of the reasons why I'm optimistic for a Donald Trump presidency is that finally Americas ugly policies have an ugly face to go with them. Every single one of Americas Presidents, from Obama to Reagan, JFK to both Bushes all maintained a veneer of respectability and decency. All of them cultivated a diplomatic and "statemanlike" appearance, all while continuing absolutely barbaric foreign policies designed to maintain American hegemony and appease industrial interests, no matter what the cost. Trump, on the other hand, refuses to play by this charade and indeed "tells it like it is".
American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American actions will now be apparent for all to see.
> American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American actions will now be apparent for all to see.
Critical voices from where? Outside the United States?
It can extremely easily be more "evil" than it has been. If the USA instated a policy to wipe out all people of a certain race, that would be much more evil than anything it has done post-WWII right?
The US will tolerate and lend its support to almost any group, no matter how "evil", provided it benefits American aims and objectives.
Take your example. While the US has not directly committed genocide, it has supported and aided many such groups responsible for genocide. Open declaration of genocidal policies by the US will face widespread international opposition and impact American business interests, and hence the US would never do so as long as this holds
A few examples of the US being supportive of genocide:
Anti-communist Indonesia was considered a valuable ally to the US in SE Asia, especially because Indonesia controlled deep water straits of vital strategic importance. Ford and Kissinger explicitly granted Indonesia approval to invade East Timor and supplied Indonesia with arms to those ends. Kissinger urged Suharto, the Indonesian premier at the time, to quickly take care of his "business", so that international scrutiny on the American-made arms involved could be avoided. The US sent millions of dollars as military aid to Indonesia at the height of the East Timor genocide, which claimed almost 200,000 lives. There are even many credible reports of American mercenaries and American pilots being involved at the height of the violence. A former US Ambassador to the UN has admitted to being charged with making sure whatever resolution the UN passed condemning Indonesian actions be completely ineffectual in whatever measures it took.
During the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War, when it was clear to Pakistan that it was going to lose, Pakistan pursued a scorched earth policy of destruction and genocide. In the words of a US official under Nixon, "It is the most incredible, calculated thing since the days of the Nazis in Poland". However, Pakistan was a valuable American ally and was backed by the US in this war, so Nixon and Kissinger actively worked to suppress evidence of genocide, even though it was made clear to them by US officials on the scene that this was exactly what was happening. After widespread outcry in the US about Pakistani actions, Nixon continued to secretly shuttle funds and arms to Pakistan. After the war, the US initially refused to recognize Bangladesh as a country and establish trade relations with it because Bangladesh wanted to prosecute Pakistani generals responsible for genocide, which claimed an estimated 2.5-3 million lives.
Clinton himself admitted fault for the '94 Rwandan genocide, responsible for an estimated 800,000 deaths. Clintons adminstration was aware of the plans to "eliminate all Tutsis", but didn't want to take action as it was not beneficial to US interests at the time, and so actively worked to suppress evidence of genocide presented to international forums in order to justify US inaction.
The US continued to back Guatemalan forces after evidence of genocide and massacres committed by them had become amply clear. These were committed under a US backed government installed after the US had staged a coup at the behest of the United Fruit Company to get rid of the previous, democratically elected, socialist President.
"The US will tolerate and lend its support to almost any group, no matter how "evil", provided it benefits American aims and objectives."
I read a biography of Allen Dulles recently and was pretty shocked to the extent the CIA recruited committed Nazi's after WW2 - they knew they could be relied on to help fight the Soviets.
I don't have time to go through point by point, but lets take your example of Clinton admitting fault for Rwanda. While he may personally feel guilt for suppressing information to justify the inaction, America did not have a responsibility to jump in and help the situation in the first place. He didn't help the situation but he didn't condone it and he wasn't the person who made it happen. He is just one person, like many others at the time, who didn't step in to try and stop it. That doesn't make you "evil", nor does it make you a saint. Sometimes its just not possible to help others, as sad as that may be, and I trust a US president more than my second hand knowledge to make that call.
In many cases it is good to have your self-interests at heart. If you lose your self as a result of your actions then what do you have left even if you win?
The Clinton example was shows the hypocrisy in the stated goals of American foreign policy. Also, you miss the part where Clintons administration mislead international bodies even when it had clear evidence that what was going on in Rwanda was genocide
>If you lose your self as a result of your actions then what do you have left even if you win?
Intervention in Rwanda would have resulted in nothing near an existential threat for America. Just like Saddam and Iraq didn't pose anything near an existential threat to America. After it was clear that Iraq possessed no so called "WMDs", the narrative quickly shifted to "we did it for humanitarian reasons". What I wanted to make clear was that the US never does anything for "humanitarian" reasons, but only when it's personal interests are in favour of doing said thing.
Also, you chose the weakest example of the lot, where US involvement was minimal. The rest of the examples make it clear that the US has no problem with evil of the highest order when it stands to gain.
I don't know about the suppression-of-information claim made, but since you don't try to refute it I have to say actively suppressing information is not the same as doing nothing. I would say you have only made a case for the latter.
I'm curious, would the #DraftOurDaughters counter-Clinton campaign meme be an example of what you are talking about? Hopefully you are familiar with that, if not Clinton openly spoke about escalating some ugly potential all out war situations, and some very smart meme artist linked it to the reality of a draft for women.
"But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill"
I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming
majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. It would seem to me that
they are the ones who pay "the biggest part of the bill".
Not that I would deny that the people doing the mass murder can themselves become
the victims of war. But I'd personally have more sympathy for civilians who are not
trying to murder others but are themselves murdered.
"Modern" is a relative term. When Butler was fighting around the turn of the the 19th century in the Philippines and elsewhere, as many(or more) men died from disease, dysentery, and infection then they did "in battle". Many conscripted men died before they ever had the chance to kill someone in the name of empire.
It's very unfortunate that this 80 year old polemic by Butler is still radical in this day and age, when so many are chomping at the bit to wage war.
It is debatable whether one can do anything at all against one's will. In regards to conscription in the US, one could always refuse and go to jail. Also, I believe even then there was such a thing as a conscientious objector.
Even then you can refuse to cooperate. You might be shot or might be bodily dragged to jail, but you still have a choice to cooperate or not, to resist or not.
So you're saying that if you refuse to go to war, are threatened with being killed and then go to war, you are in fact going to war voluntarily? That sounds like a rather philosophical interpretation of "of your own free will".
I'm saying that I recognize that there is coercion, but also that you have a choice. Those that are ordered to do something and do it choose to do so. But they could have chosen otherwise and faced the consequences. In fact, many in the past have done just that.
It's disingenuous to say they didn't have a choice or they did it against their will, for if they really willed otherwise, they could have done otherwise (as demonstrated in the previous paragraph). They may have preferred to do something else, but not enough to actually do anything about it.
If you really and truly object to going to war or killing, then don't. You always have that choice. Don't pretend you don't.
In "On Killing" [0], the author argued that WWI troops consistently aimed over the heads of their enemies, in order to avoid ever actually killing someone.
This tendency obviously ran counter to the goals of the generals, so after WWII the military devised ways to make the soldiers comfortable with aiming at people.
That's just to say - even among active-duty soldiers, there is a spectrum of those willing to kill or not.
It's disingenuous to say they didn't have a choice
or they did it against their will
If a school bully someone tells me "give me your lunch money or I'll give you a black eye" and I give them my lunch money, would you say I've done so against my will?
I would say I had done so against my will - because although I had a choice between two bad options, I was forced to submit to a choice that was structured to deny me the option to do neither.
With conscription the third option, not going to jail and not joining the army, has been removed forcibly. If I intend to work on my farm but get conscripted I don't get the choice of staying. I will have to leave against my will.
Hey choose between joining the army or jail time! It's your free choice so it can't be against your will!
Let's not overlook the toll that murder takes on those pressured and conditioned into being willing and able to do so. PTSD rates among recent Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 20% [1]. More veterans commit suicide after coming home than are KIA.
This phenomenon was summed up succinctly by Frankie Boyle
> Not only will America go to your country and kill all your people, but what's worse I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.
> America making a movie about what Vietnam did to their soldiers is like a serial killer telling you what stopping suddenly for hitchhikers did to his clutch.
There's an interesting book related to that, called "On Killing".[1] It's about the psychological conditioning that killers-to-be undergo to actually get them to kill.
I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. It would seem to me that they are the ones who pay "the biggest part of the bill"
Focusing on this aspect is kinda lame since the main point of Butler's message was that someone suffers, and someone else profits, and that military action is generally taken for monetary profit, and not for any higher purpose.
My recollection from history class was that the proportion of civilian:military deaths in war in the 2000s is basically the inverse of how it was in the early 1900s.
> I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians.
This may be true, but a soldier probably has a far higher likelihood of dying in a war than a civilian, thereby "paying the bill." This means that in expectation, each individual soldier pays a higher value of the bill in comparison to each individual citizen.
His use of the term "bill" refers to the cost of US participation in war; All of the wars he's talking about took place outside the US, so de minimis US citizen casualties
still i would agree, and i bet Gen Butler would as well that civilians suffer the "biggest part of the" damage, but Butler's statement that you quoted was more specific.
In 1933, someone associated with the Du Pont interests tried to hire Butler to organize a coup to overthrow Roosevelt. It's never been clear how serious a plot this was, but Butler didn't go along and the plot died.[1]
There was a lot of fascination with Fascism and dictators around this time, a now creepy movie from this time is "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse", which promotes the idea of a Roosevelt-like president becoming dictator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg
If you pay a visit to DC, there's a hill you can go to that overlooks the Pentagon. It's illuminating how many aerospace and other government contractor logos are on buildings surrounding the space. It's like a giant star shaped trough with animals of all shapes and sizes come to feed.
I'm reminded of the money Halliburton made in both the Gulf Wars. And then they promptly moved their headquarters to the MiddleEast, to avoid any scrutiny.
Where in the middle east do you mean Halliburton has their HQ? I was curious so I did a bit of checking and it seems they're headquartered in Houston, Texas.
A US company that provides services to the military did move its HQs to the ME, but you got the name wrong. I don't recall it myself, but it's not Halliburton.
I believe the company moved to Dubai or some other city.
> There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.
The problem is that you can justify almost any conflict as ultimately meeting these criteria. If you let someone else become too powerful isn't that a de facto threat to your home? If you don't defend rights abroad, don't you threaten the extinction of rights at home?
That's why we do rely on the morality of our leaders. Which seems to be ropey at best.
No, it isn't and that's typical USA thinking pattern - we have to be the best and control everything, then we're "safe" (oh and we'll earn some might good ol' $ too).
I am not advocating, only describing. I think his argument is a problem because it can easily be undermined by specious arguments such as I have outlined. Hence the need to believe in the moral judgement of leaders not to be drawn in by such.
Coincidentally, I told my brother to read this last weekend.
Smedley Butler is a brilliant orator. He manages to distill social and political outrage/abuse into a language that the everyman can connect with, and without sounding like a populist communist sympathizer. He achieved the latter by often stressing the importance of individual as well as community action. He used the term "Americanism" do describe this socially engaged entrepreneur attitude.
Things like this are why I think we've strayed very far from presidents Truman or Eisenhower, very opposed in their time, but so much closer to what we need today than we've really had since. JFK and Reagan at least inspired the population, and I wouldn't mind seeing another similar president, but I don't think today's political climate could tolerate any of them today.
This General was features in an episode of Untold History of the United States. Don't let the fact that Oliver Stone produced this deter you from watching it. I found it a very good, albeit quick, overview of history of the last 100 years. 12 episodes, on Netflix. Weirdly, the last two episodes are really the first two, so start there, the wrap back around to episode 1.
"The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted." This is a great quote. Never gonna happen. But what a change that would make. If we instituted a "draft" of the financial and industrial systems, e.g. made them pay for war the way drafted soldiers pay-- without profit-- without choice-- we wouldn't go to war. The powerful and wealthy would never allow their profits to disappear into that kind of a void.
"Conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted"
Are you kidding? It's called taxation!
People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and a lot of it goes towards the military. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just that it is.
The General has a right to his opinion, but he cannot seem to grasp action and consequence.
The world is not some simple place wherein you can have easy answers to such questions.
Imagine for a moment if America did not control the high seas, the Panama canal, de-facto the Suez, the Gulf, and patrol the South China sea - and make them open and free for everyone to navigate - even competitors like China, Iran and Russia?
All of those areas - including the routes around S. America and Africa would be controlled by totalitarian/thuggish entities or irregular forces and it'd be too expensive or unsafe to travel.
He's not talking about taxation. He's saying, "Before you institute a draft and force healthy young men into poverty, suffering, mental disorders and death, force the people who profit from such action into exactly the same situation (e.g. max salary of whatever the soldier's max salary is, production at bare costs, etc)." He's making the point that war would suddenly cease to be an option, because only the poor and powerless can be conscripted. If you started conscripting everyone in the same way, the rich and powerful would stop any such war from occurring in order to avoid such pains.
Though income tax rates after the war were quite high - it was for a very small group, and actual receipts were not as high.
'The 1%' do not generate a lot of income, they generate capital gains, which is why a 90% 'income tax' rate wouldn't have the effect you might think.
Moreover, in a climate wherein there actually is a 90% income tax rate, every wealthy person that can afford an accountant (i.e. all of them) would find ways around this. They'll simply take almost no income, and use other vehicles instead, i.e. sale of shares, royalties etc..
By that reasoning, why tax the rich at all? They'll always find a way around it.
In fact, the rich are not all powerful and don't get carte blanche when it comes to hiding their money.
Do you remember all of those secret Swiss bank accounts which were widely used to hide money? Well, in recent decades, the US has managed to force the legendarily secret Swiss banking system to become much more transparent, precisely in order to go after tax evaders. Tax evasion has also become a really serious issue in Europe. Governments are in fact going after the rich to get their due.
That doesn't mean there aren't loopholes, or that the rich can't manage to hide some of their money (at least temporarily, while the law catches up with them). But that doesn't mean they can hide it all or that there'll be no consequences for at least some of them. It certainly does not mean that we shouldn't try to tax them more.
I'm just saying that during the era of 90% 'income tax' for high earners, they would simply declare their income as capital gains. It's just what they did. And what people do.
No, you do not get to simply recategorize earned income as unearned. And also at the time of these high rates there was no seperate capital gains tax. The income tax rate applied. What would not have applied is FICA tax, i.e. Social Security and Medicare, which is only assessed on earned income ( i.e. wages from a job).
"There's no reason why capital gains couldn't be taxed at the same rates as income."
Sure there is -> risk.
It's why everywhere in the world cap gains are taxed lower than income.
Cap gains + income tax at 90% and economy would collapse instantly as risk premium goes up, most equities and probably most bonds would drop quite a lot and people moved into real-estate, cash, commodities, gold. etc..
>>People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history...
Please explain that comment in the context of 94% top income tax rates in the U.S.
And also explain how it is the U.S. recently had a president who said tax cuts were necessary somehow because running a surplus and paying off the debt is bad, and once at war and running large deficits again would not consider a war time tax.
Taxation implies profit. There used to be a time when war profiteering got you sent to jail.
Also "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" will churn the stomach almost as much as the stories of the rise of the Ottoman Empire by (sssh redacted religion) piles of heads or the accounts of the Armenian Genocide.
What people often don't often realise that in the 20's 30's racket was a slang term for any job / profession it had yet to take on its illegal connotations
Not sure where you got this idea, but reading Butler's speech should make it clear the kind of connotations the word racket had in the 30's.
"During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."
Makes me really sad to read that old piece with so many things I thought myself. When will we commit to these ideas ? defense-only, profit-less, transparency ?
In 3rd world countries leaders exploit their people. In developed countries leaders exploit 3rd world countries because it's not possible to exploit your own people... Too many damn rules and ways of controlling people. War in that sense is corruption. And corruption should be stopped. It's a completely unfair way of enriching yourself and your friends. Bush and Cheney being great examples. But it happens in many other cases as well. Industries that depend on war push for war. Countries like Saudi Arabia that benefit from war push for war and so on.
We've banned this account for posting primarily political comments, which is not what this site is for. We're happy to unban accounts if you email hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll not post this way in the future.
That fact that you can't call it the Jewish lobby is exactly the squeamishness I'm referring to. The Jewish lobby are not at all shy about saying that they support Israel because they are Jewish. There are of course some Jews who claim to hold the opposite opinion because they are Jewish, but it is clear that the economic and political influence of Jewish Americans is overall pro-Israeli and pro-war, most recently advocating for a proxy war with Russia in Syria.
Also comparing three terms on google trends suggests the left haven't been nearly active enough in promoting either concept:
>That fact that you can't call it the Jewish lobby is exactly the squeamishness I'm referring to.
There's a pretty good reason for that apprehension. You're asserting that Jewish interests have disproportionate influence in American foreign policy. We know this is a stalking horse for claims of Jewish influence in other circles of society.
At that point, you're not "simply asking questions", you're promoting anti-Semitic propaganda.
The Jewish lobby and the Zionist lobby are two separate things.
> ... it was Russian blood that sucked German army white.
Interestingly, the Russian invasion of Manchuria (i.e. their entry into the Pacific theater) also played a much more significant role in Japan's surrender than most of us were taught in history class. The US had been firebombing Japanese cities for months, so the atom bombs, while devastating, were not an order of magnitude escalation, whereas the Russian invasion certainly was.
Curious how he described protection of overseas investments and business interests as a "racket", but at the same time enjoyed living in one of the most advanced economics of the world, fuelled by strong business and trade.
This is a lame criticism, because it implies that anyone who disagrees with their home country's policies should just move somewjere else, because they are dirty commie hippies.
He certainly "earned" the rights to his creature comforts, if participation in war is the measure of his dedivation the U.S.A.
I think it's more curious that rich people from all nations benefit from advanced economies, without sending their family members, or themselves in harm's way.
Why is that curious? What is your point? That you need war and the military-industrial complex for prosperity? That may be, but you leave out any argument why that is so. The only one I can think of is a pretty negative view that you need a strong military to get what you would otherwise not get from others willingly, from determining who leads in other countries to open access to other countries' markets, even though it has been proven that free markets don't work well (to put it mildly) when power is very unequally distributed between the parties.
Reading the comments below, I come to understand that many are missing the point of the essay, or speech as it was intended originally.
For modern readers, Butler's words are not to be taken directly but in context. Butler's point is that war is a racket. That is it. Funny right. If you are to ignore all the details about the casualties and who said what and who did what, you are still left with the essence of the speech. War is a racket. Repeat after me :) If you instill the mindset that war is a racket then all the pieces fall into place. It becomes very clear that war has no regard for human life. That it is detached from reality of life and death.
"Eliot A. Cohen, an official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that Mr. Obama’s trips to Walter Reed may have been the reason, and that future presidents should avoid such visits.
“A president has to be psychologically prepared to send people into harm’s way and to get a good night’s sleep,” Mr. Cohen said. “And anything they do that might cripple them that way means they’re not doing their job.”" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama-walter-r...
"they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what?
Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up. Additionally, presidents should visit hospitals in Syria maybe. Maybe then they will not make the same actions.