Every so often, I recall I have something I’ve read rattling around in my head that might be of interest to others. Once such something is “War is a Racket,” written by Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC, retired. He wrote it in the 1930s. Butler wasn’t some naive pacifist; he was one of the most decorated marines ever — including two medals of honor.
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
. . .
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.
. . .
The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed.
Butler proposed taking the profit out of war by requiring that the government conscript industry one month before it conscripts any soldiers and that the bankers and industrialists be limited to the pay given to a conscripted soldier.
Want another good anti-war read: The War Prayer by Mark Twain.
“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle – be Thou near them! With them – in spirit – we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it – for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.”
This is something that I have always suspected or even known deep down, but it seems so painful coming from someone from the inside. Kind of like confirming there is no Santa Claus. *sigh*
The recent bill authorizing a naval blockade against Iran had 200 Democrat co-sponsors in the House. So much for our opposition peace party.
Not exactly profiles in courage, I’ll grant you.
I guess it also bears mentioning that Butler’s main experience was with World War I which, from an American perspective, was even more pointless than the typical war. I’ve studied the Great War to some extent, and I still don’t know that we particularly had a reason to prefer one side over another in that conflict. World War II was a nice “good” versus “evil” kind of affair, but World War I was a muddle.
The thing I have observed about the Democrats is that they are for war when we are winning, and against it when we are losing or progress is slow. Very few Democrats, such as Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel were simply against the war.
There is a great Dead Kennedys track called, “Kinky Sex Makes the World Go Round”. It’s a bogus call from the Dept. of War to an unnamed prime minister, asking if they’d like to start a nice war in order to pick up the economy.
Don’t know about embedding video in your comments, so here’s the link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=DzSU0d5vG6k
You’ll notice how General Butler developed his opinions by perusing his military résumé. It was a veritable laundry list of U.S. interventions, not so much World War I as you think.
I recognized his name from the “Business Plot” against FDR in 1934. I still think there is more to that little episode than we know about to this day.
As to your comment regarding the U.S. and World War I, it would be an interesting exercise to extrapolate various probabilities had the U.S. remained aloof or joined with Germany in World War I. It was certainly a possibility either way, and the world might have been a much different place than that which we know today.
A good number of Democrats, myself included, were against the war before it started. The Democratic politicians, in many cases, voted for the war in defense of their elected offices–exactly as had been planned by the timing of the push for war. They were selfishly pragmatic in order to save their jobs. Had they shown courage, war may have been averted and they would have been bounced out of office. It’s a shame they made the choice they did.
Pragmatism does seem to trump idealism or even personal values in national politics, doesn’t it?
These Dems who voted for the naval blockade of Iran did so after the 2006 elections which were largely seen as a referendum on our future policy in Iraq and the region. To say they voted for this to protect their seats seems a stretch to me. And not to mention, not only did they vote for it, they co-sponsored it. 200 of them! I realize note everyone is a bleeding hearted hippie like myself, but I think it’s CLEAR that many people voted against more war in 2006, but that’s not what they got.
Either too many Democratic politicians have a bad case of battered minority party syndrome that one good election hasn’t cured, or their positions aren’t that much better than the Republicans’. The Democrats should take this election cycle, and then time will tell.
It just shows what is valued: the health of the nation, or getting re-elected.
“A good number of Democrats, myself included, were against the war before it started. The Democratic politicians, in many cases, voted for the war in defense of their elected offices–exactly as had been planned by the timing of the push for war. They were selfishly pragmatic in order to save their jobs. Had they shown courage, war may have been averted and they would have been bounced out of office. It’s a shame they made the choice they did.”
If you look at the vote to give Bush the authorization for his Iraq invasion,most Dems in the Senate voted for it but in the House most voted against it.
The “courageous” Republican strategy was to use the tragedy of 9/11 as a political tool against the Dems that would have normally voted against it. Nevermind that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.
“The thing I have observed about the Democrats is that they are for war when we are winning, and against it when we are losing or progress is slow. Very few Democrats, such as Dennis Kucinich or Mike Gravel were simply against the war”
See above comment.
And I might add that I would argue that Iraq was an invasion and is an occupation.
So the debate about winning or losing the “war” in Iraq simply doesn’t apply.
I do think borrowing 8-12 billion dollars a month to support the occupation is a huge loss for the future of this country. Something that our enemies wanted all along.