4 ms·

Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with

by vga805 7y ago

Smedley Butler is like a God figure to Marines, second only to Chesty Puller. I've often referenced this when arguing about the military-industrial complex with people who assume that if you criticize military spending you are somehow anti-military. I don't know if it has any effect. Some might think it's a fallacious argument from authority, but I don't think it is. Fortunately, or unfortunately?, the people I tend to argue with about this stuff likely don't know what that fallacy is.

daveslash 7y ago
I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  Same way people genuinely join the police to make things better. They think they can make a difference, even if the system is all fucked up. Sometimes they're right.
- hoorayimhelping 7y ago
  I almost joined the Marines (but failed to make it for OCS due to health reasons). My dad's side of the family is a military family, with my grandfather being a career officer in the Army and two uncles also serving. I think it's much deeper than "defend the country." For a lot of people, the military is the only ticket out of their bumfuck nowhere life. For some people, it's a chance to learn some self discipline and self confidence. For some people, it's a brotherhood of warriors they're part of. For some people, it's a way to get a college education. For some people, it's about defending their nation. Of course there are plenty of people who watch a Michael Bay movie and think they'll be some badass operator if they enlist. I think someone like Smedley Butler might have viewed the military as a place that turns boys into confident men, teaches them valuable skills, instills discipline and self respect into them, and hooks them into a network of lifelong brothers. War is not necessary for any of this, and he realized that when we go to war, he has to send his men to die so that people with contacts in Washington can get rich. He says in the linked paper that he suspected it when he was a Marine and finally realized it after he retired.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  “How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?” It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.
  - krapp 7y ago
    We're no longer living in the 19th century, most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war. Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare. I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country.
    - modwest 7y ago
      > most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war Sounds like you live in a nice bubble. > Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare. highly branch-specific. They cater recruiting messages to the target audience. Look up Marine recruiting material. > I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country you'd lose that bet
    - positivejam 7y ago
      > I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country. Most of the guys I went to basic with or deployed with could. Not. Wait. To see action.
    - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
      I'm a Gen X-er, and people at my high school were joining the military almost entirely for the touted financial and education benefits. I had multiple friends who went into various branches and I don't recall a single one joining with the expectation that they wanted to go out and kill people. Having said that, though, do you remember people in that age bracked signing up in the aftermath of 9/11? They were doing so explicitly because they wanted to go out and "fight back." And we've been at war in those areas ever since. I don't think it's particularly plausible that, after nearly two decades of constant deployment to war zones in the Middle East, anyone would sign up for the Marines with the expectation that they would not be required to go kill for their country.
- pluto9 7y ago
  That reason is mostly presumed by those who do not sign up. Among those who do, the reasons are varied. Many sign up simply because they need a job or as a way to procure technical experience or funding for college. And many in the infantry and other combat arms jobs sign up because they want adventure or see it as a kind of initiation into manhood. Many feel a sense of responsibility to "do their part", but that isn't the primary motivating factor and is almost never explicitly stated. The scene in Black Hawk Down where Josh Hartnett's character is mocked for saying "I was trained to make a difference" is quite accurate. Every generation has a supply of young men who go to war simply because they want to go to war. That's a human universal as far as I can tell. The reasons for the war are unimportant. It isn't until they become older and more introspective that they consider the big-picture morality of it. Smedley Butler was in his 50s when he made that speech.
- jcranmer 7y ago
  It is worth pointing out that Butler served at the time when the US foreign policy was pretty explicitly based on aggressive interest in foreign trade: if another country wouldn't let Americans in for commerce, than send in the Marines to force them to do so. As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today.
  - enriquepablo 7y ago
    > As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today. Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad. If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in. If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it, then the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect.
      - enriquepablo 7y ago
        > then the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect Don't say on "me", I was just offering a plausible side. But I agree it is a difficult question. There is the point you make, but there is also the point made by asking "cui bono".
      - int_19h 7y ago
        Well, no, we don't invade them - we subsidize a coup in their country. It's much cheaper that way, when their own troops are performing occupation duties, paid for by the taxes of the people they occupy. And if those people revolt, then there's a "legitimate government" asking us to help them in a "police action" - not a war, God forbid! And then we train their troops and give them munitions. And if all that fails, then we send our troops to protect the "legitimate government".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
m463 7y ago
> arguing about the military-industrial complex Although it was almost 30 years later, you could also quote Eisenhower's parting words: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."
clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago
Two Marines two medals! Dan Daley and Smedley Butler!

by vga805 7y ago

daveslash 7y ago

I've had several Marine and ex-Marine friends mention Butler to me. How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?

ceejayoz 7y ago
Same way people genuinely join the police to make things better. They think they can make a difference, even if the system is all fucked up. Sometimes they're right.
hoorayimhelping 7y ago
I almost joined the Marines (but failed to make it for OCS due to health reasons). My dad's side of the family is a military family, with my grandfather being a career officer in the Army and two uncles also serving. I think it's much deeper than "defend the country." For a lot of people, the military is the only ticket out of their bumfuck nowhere life. For some people, it's a chance to learn some self discipline and self confidence. For some people, it's a brotherhood of warriors they're part of. For some people, it's a way to get a college education. For some people, it's about defending their nation. Of course there are plenty of people who watch a Michael Bay movie and think they'll be some badass operator if they enlist. I think someone like Smedley Butler might have viewed the military as a place that turns boys into confident men, teaches them valuable skills, instills discipline and self respect into them, and hooks them into a network of lifelong brothers. War is not necessary for any of this, and he realized that when we go to war, he has to send his men to die so that people with contacts in Washington can get rich. He says in the linked paper that he suspected it when he was a Marine and finally realized it after he retired.
Ididntdothis 7y ago
“How does "War is a Racket" align or jive (or not!) with the presumed reason that most young men and women sign up for the military, which is to valiantly protect and defend the country?” It aligns with the fact that the warmongers are putting out a lot of propaganda that makes it a virtue to go to war and die for the warmongers.
- krapp 7y ago
  We're no longer living in the 19th century, most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war. Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare. I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country.
  - modwest 7y ago
    > most people no longer believe in the nobility and glory of war Sounds like you live in a nice bubble. > Much of the modern recruitment efforts I've seen focus on benefits like paying for student loan debts, workforce training and healthcare. highly branch-specific. They cater recruiting messages to the target audience. Look up Marine recruiting material. > I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country you'd lose that bet
  - positivejam 7y ago
    > I would bet that most people who join the military today (at least in the US) do so hoping to avoid ever having to see action, rather than looking forward to killing for their country. Most of the guys I went to basic with or deployed with could. Not. Wait. To see action.
  - chipotle_coyote 7y ago
    I'm a Gen X-er, and people at my high school were joining the military almost entirely for the touted financial and education benefits. I had multiple friends who went into various branches and I don't recall a single one joining with the expectation that they wanted to go out and kill people. Having said that, though, do you remember people in that age bracked signing up in the aftermath of 9/11? They were doing so explicitly because they wanted to go out and "fight back." And we've been at war in those areas ever since. I don't think it's particularly plausible that, after nearly two decades of constant deployment to war zones in the Middle East, anyone would sign up for the Marines with the expectation that they would not be required to go kill for their country.
pluto9 7y ago
That reason is mostly presumed by those who do not sign up. Among those who do, the reasons are varied. Many sign up simply because they need a job or as a way to procure technical experience or funding for college. And many in the infantry and other combat arms jobs sign up because they want adventure or see it as a kind of initiation into manhood. Many feel a sense of responsibility to "do their part", but that isn't the primary motivating factor and is almost never explicitly stated. The scene in Black Hawk Down where Josh Hartnett's character is mocked for saying "I was trained to make a difference" is quite accurate. Every generation has a supply of young men who go to war simply because they want to go to war. That's a human universal as far as I can tell. The reasons for the war are unimportant. It isn't until they become older and more introspective that they consider the big-picture morality of it. Smedley Butler was in his 50s when he made that speech.
jcranmer 7y ago
It is worth pointing out that Butler served at the time when the US foreign policy was pretty explicitly based on aggressive interest in foreign trade: if another country wouldn't let Americans in for commerce, than send in the Marines to force them to do so. As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today.
- enriquepablo 7y ago
  > As a result, it's worth cautioning people that just because a fact of foreign policy efforts was true 100 years ago does not mean that it is true today. Perhaps we might say something contrarian to this: if it was something true 100 years ago, the burden of proof is on the side of proving it is no longer so. And I think you will have a hard time at it.
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    The US no longer has a foreign policy explicitly built on the protection of American commercial interests abroad. If you haven't noticed, we no longer invade countries (e.g., Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela) when they threaten to nationalize industries that the US has a large stake in. If you believe that the foreign policy is built on that premise, but that the government is lying about it, then the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect.
    - enriquepablo 7y ago
      > then the burden of proof is on you to show that lying is in effect Don't say on "me", I was just offering a plausible side. But I agree it is a difficult question. There is the point you make, but there is also the point made by asking "cui bono".
    - int_19h 7y ago
      Well, no, we don't invade them - we subsidize a coup in their country. It's much cheaper that way, when their own troops are performing occupation duties, paid for by the taxes of the people they occupy. And if those people revolt, then there's a "legitimate government" asking us to help them in a "police action" - not a war, God forbid! And then we train their troops and give them munitions. And if all that fails, then we send our troops to protect the "legitimate government".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

m463 7y ago

> arguing about the military-industrial complex Although it was almost 30 years later, you could also quote Eisenhower's parting words: "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex."

clSTophEjUdRanu 7y ago

Two Marines two medals! Dan Daley and Smedley Butler!