16 ms·

War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933)

317 points by betolink 10y ago

angersock 10y ago
This is one of the best essays on war I've ever read, and I'm glad to see it posted here. It should be required reading in schools.
doug1001 10y ago
this is extraordinary 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.
- Natsu 10y ago
  There's been a fairly recent leak of evidence regarding this--the Yemen files: https://wikileaks.org/yemen-files/ https://wikileaks.org/yemen-files/
- fsloth 10y ago
  "this is extraordinary" 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).
  - sooheon 10y ago
    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.
    - bzbarsky 10y ago
      fsloth would claim that this was a "UN sanctioned peace action", I bet. ;)
      - fsloth 10y ago
        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.
        bzbarsky 10y ago
        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.
  - 10y ago
- DanielBMarkham 10y ago
  S/F fellow devil dog :) 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.
  - zentiggr 10y ago
    F-35 anyone?
- CrossWired 10y ago
  > Needless to say, i never heard about this book while serving in the USMC as a Sergeant. Nor did I, but why we be told about a book that questions the purpose of everything we were being asked to do? Also, Semper Fi devil!
1024core 10y ago
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.
- smcl 10y ago
  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.
  - dingaling 10y ago
    Halliburton moved their corporate HQ and CEO to Dubai in 2007. They remain incorporated via the Texas office to bid on US tenders
  - 1024core 10y ago
    Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-later-hallibur_b_43196.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-la...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- finid 10y ago
  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.
  - 1024core 10y ago
    It was Halliburton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-later-hallibur_b_43196.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-la...
dexwiz 10y ago
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". http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  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. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
  - nerfhammer 10y ago
    Widely regarded by experts as best placed in the fiction section
    - SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
      Then I'd suggest The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. That book is reference city.
      - nerfhammer 10y ago
        Why? It doesn't seem like quite the same thing. 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.
devoply 10y ago
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.
Animats 10y ago
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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
- IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
  Supposedly, Prescott Bush was one of the people behind it.
- gedy 10y ago
  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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    There's also "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis, from 1935. It envisions a totalitarian dictatorship taking over the US. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here
pmoriarty 10y ago
"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.
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  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.
- Teever 10y ago
  The ration between soldier deaths vs civilian deaths has grown tremendously since Butler's time. But more importantly back then American soldiers were conscripted and forced to fight against their will.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    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.
    - jnbiche 10y ago
      > In regards to conscription in the US, one could always refuse and go to jail. What about going to jail against one's will? Can you refuse to do that? That doesn't seem so debatable.
      - pmoriarty 10y ago
        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.
scandox 10y ago
> 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.
- dmichulke 10y ago
  The problem of > defend rights abroad is that of course the "abroad" state is then entitled to defend its perceived rights in your state. So only "defend rights at home" is actually a stable principle.
- tdkl 10y ago
  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).
  - scandox 10y ago
    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.
samdung 10y ago
I'm sure USA armies have killed more people than Hitler's armies.
- SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
  Well, you're comparing an entire country's history to one leader. Not apples for apples in terms of time spans.
  - rusanu 10y ago
    Even ignoring this, I doubt that the sum of all US caused casualties can approach WWII USSR losses caused by German forces.
    - dba7dba 10y ago
      US casualty is no where close to what Germans killed in Russia.
- kobayashi 10y ago
  I'm currently debating if this ludicrous comparison deserves my time to debunk this lunacy. I sure hope that HN readers see the many faults in the logic and morality of such a statement.
- WillPostForFood 10y ago
  You have no conception of how big and bad WWII was. The Russian casualties (25 million+) alone dwarf US casualties committed many times over.
- dba7dba 10y ago
  You obviously have no idea how bloody the fighting between Germany and Russia was. While US made critical contribution in WW2, it was Russian blood that sucked German army white.
  - flavor8 10y ago
mmaunder 10y ago
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.
wz1000 10y ago
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.
- micaksica 10y ago
  > 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?
  - sooheon 10y ago
    Anywhere critical thought exists, I would hope? Why draw geographic borders on what is hopefully a universal phenomenon, the ability to be critical?
- delbel 10y ago
  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.
- haydenlee 10y ago
  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?
vachi 10y ago
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-reed-military.html 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.
- fsloth 10y ago
  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.
- twblalock 10y ago
  > "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.
sspiff 10y ago
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.
farright 10y ago
Back then this makes sense, but today the Jewish lobby is as significant as the "military industrial complex". It's unfortunate that it's considered impolite to speak about the influence of Jews in US politics, unless you think this influence is a good thing. So we get deathly silence from the left on this issue.
- calibraxis 10y ago
  The left talks about the Israel lobby. Certainly would not talk about a "Jewish lobby." http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/05/01/the-israel-lobby/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/05/01/the-israel-lobby/ Far more important than some "Jewish lobby" is the white lobby. Beyond influential, and very happy as of late.
  - farright 10y ago
    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: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Jewish%20lobby,military%20industrial%20complex,Israeli%20lobby https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Jewish%20lobby,milit...
    - razakel 10y ago
      >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.
golergka 10y ago
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.
- Noseshine 10y ago
  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.
- insulanus 10y ago
  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. Which is more unfair?
disposablezero 10y ago
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.
fsloth 10y ago
There is a graphic novel about this topic called "Addicted to war" which was pretty good: http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html
lostboys67 10y ago
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
- calibas 10y ago
  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."
  - lostboys67 10y ago
    If you read histories quoting original sources its also used in literature at the time Pg Woodhouse.
e40 10y ago
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.
tracker1 10y ago
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. It's a shame.
christophilus 10y ago
"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.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "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. As just one example.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    "People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and" This is not even remotely true. The US used to have an income tax that was over 90%. Something like 94%, if memory serves.
    - edblarney 10y ago
      It's quite true. 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..
agumonkey 10y ago
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 ?

317 points by betolink 10y ago

This is one of the best essays on war I've ever read, and I'm glad to see it posted here. It should be required reading in schools.

doug1001 10y ago

this is extraordinary 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.

Natsu 10y ago
There's been a fairly recent leak of evidence regarding this--the Yemen files: https://wikileaks.org/yemen-files/ https://wikileaks.org/yemen-files/
fsloth 10y ago
"this is extraordinary" 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).
- sooheon 10y ago
  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.
  - bzbarsky 10y ago
    fsloth would claim that this was a "UN sanctioned peace action", I bet. ;)
    - fsloth 10y ago
      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.
      - bzbarsky 10y ago
        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.
- 10y ago
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
S/F fellow devil dog :) 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.
- zentiggr 10y ago
  F-35 anyone?
CrossWired 10y ago
> Needless to say, i never heard about this book while serving in the USMC as a Sergeant. Nor did I, but why we be told about a book that questions the purpose of everything we were being asked to do? Also, Semper Fi devil!

1024core 10y ago

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.

smcl 10y ago
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.
- dingaling 10y ago
  Halliburton moved their corporate HQ and CEO to Dubai in 2007. They remain incorporated via the Texas office to bid on US tenders
- 1024core 10y ago
  Ref: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-later-hallibur_b_43196.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-la...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
finid 10y ago
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.
- 1024core 10y ago
  It was Halliburton: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-later-hallibur_b_43196.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raymond-j-learsy/20-billion-la...

dexwiz 10y ago

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". http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

pmoriarty 10y ago
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. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
- nerfhammer 10y ago
  Widely regarded by experts as best placed in the fiction section
  - SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
    Then I'd suggest The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. That book is reference city.
    - nerfhammer 10y ago
      Why? It doesn't seem like quite the same thing. 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.

devoply 10y ago

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.

Animats 10y ago

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] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

IslaDeEncanta 10y ago
Supposedly, Prescott Bush was one of the people behind it.
gedy 10y ago
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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  There's also "It Can't Happen Here" by Sinclair Lewis, from 1935. It envisions a totalitarian dictatorship taking over the US. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here

pmoriarty 10y ago

"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.

ajdlinux 10y ago
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.
Teever 10y ago
The ration between soldier deaths vs civilian deaths has grown tremendously since Butler's time. But more importantly back then American soldiers were conscripted and forced to fight against their will.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  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.
  - jnbiche 10y ago
    > In regards to conscription in the US, one could always refuse and go to jail. What about going to jail against one's will? Can you refuse to do that? That doesn't seem so debatable.
    - pmoriarty 10y ago
      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.

scandox 10y ago

> 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.

dmichulke 10y ago
The problem of > defend rights abroad is that of course the "abroad" state is then entitled to defend its perceived rights in your state. So only "defend rights at home" is actually a stable principle.
tdkl 10y ago
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).
- scandox 10y ago
  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.

samdung 10y ago

I'm sure USA armies have killed more people than Hitler's armies.

SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
Well, you're comparing an entire country's history to one leader. Not apples for apples in terms of time spans.
- rusanu 10y ago
  Even ignoring this, I doubt that the sum of all US caused casualties can approach WWII USSR losses caused by German forces.
  - dba7dba 10y ago
    US casualty is no where close to what Germans killed in Russia.
kobayashi 10y ago
I'm currently debating if this ludicrous comparison deserves my time to debunk this lunacy. I sure hope that HN readers see the many faults in the logic and morality of such a statement.
WillPostForFood 10y ago
You have no conception of how big and bad WWII was. The Russian casualties (25 million+) alone dwarf US casualties committed many times over.
dba7dba 10y ago
You obviously have no idea how bloody the fighting between Germany and Russia was. While US made critical contribution in WW2, it was Russian blood that sucked German army white.
- flavor8 10y ago

mmaunder 10y ago

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.

wz1000 10y ago

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.

micaksica 10y ago
> 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?
- sooheon 10y ago
  Anywhere critical thought exists, I would hope? Why draw geographic borders on what is hopefully a universal phenomenon, the ability to be critical?
delbel 10y ago
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.
haydenlee 10y ago
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?

vachi 10y ago

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-reed-military.html 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.

fsloth 10y ago
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.
twblalock 10y ago
> "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.

sspiff 10y ago

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.

farright 10y ago

Back then this makes sense, but today the Jewish lobby is as significant as the "military industrial complex". It's unfortunate that it's considered impolite to speak about the influence of Jews in US politics, unless you think this influence is a good thing. So we get deathly silence from the left on this issue.

calibraxis 10y ago
The left talks about the Israel lobby. Certainly would not talk about a "Jewish lobby." http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/05/01/the-israel-lobby/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/05/01/the-israel-lobby/ Far more important than some "Jewish lobby" is the white lobby. Beyond influential, and very happy as of late.
- farright 10y ago
  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: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Jewish%20lobby,military%20industrial%20complex,Israeli%20lobby https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=Jewish%20lobby,milit...
  - razakel 10y ago
    >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.

golergka 10y ago

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.

Noseshine 10y ago
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.
insulanus 10y ago
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. Which is more unfair?

disposablezero 10y ago

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.

fsloth 10y ago

There is a graphic novel about this topic called "Addicted to war" which was pretty good: http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html

lostboys67 10y ago

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

calibas 10y ago
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."
- lostboys67 10y ago
  If you read histories quoting original sources its also used in literature at the time Pg Woodhouse.

e40 10y ago

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.

tracker1 10y ago

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. It's a shame.

christophilus 10y ago

"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.

edblarney 10y ago
"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. As just one example.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  "People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and" This is not even remotely true. The US used to have an income tax that was over 90%. Something like 94%, if memory serves.
  - edblarney 10y ago
    It's quite true. 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..

agumonkey 10y ago

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 ?