War is Just a Racket

[Morton]

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of 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 masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. 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.

There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. 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. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

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.

~ General Smedley Darlington Butler USMC (one of the most decorated U.S. soldiers in history)

The full speech, just in case you want to read

Edited May 30, 2013 by Morton 1st MRB

[Morton]

I read this, for the first time, just a few minutes ago. It wasn't until I read the years in the next to last paragraph that I realized it wasn't written in the present. It still rings true to this day. Where the dollar goes, the flag follows, and the soldiers follow the flag.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Morton 1st MRB

[Arsenault 1st MRB]

Very interesting Morton. I share this wise man's view of most countries' military deeds.

[Peaker]

It's easy to brand war as simply the expression of corporate and personal interests, and that is the view that most of the left wing seems to have adopted these days. However, scholars have been studying war for millennia, it's causes, it's purpose etc... and we still don't have a definite answer. While personal and corporate interests definitely played a role in the US's latest wars, I do not think those are the sole factors, or even the predominant ones. Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Wilson and other theoreticians of international relations and warfare would each have different answers because such a phenomenon isn't so simple as to warrant a simple mention of "Yeah it was all for the oil.".

Then again it's perfectly legitimate and desirable for citizens to ask such questions of their government. During the city-state days of Athens the citizens voted on whether or not the city went to war or not because such important decisions could not be entrusted to a single person (Because they affected the whole of the city). More involvement by the people leads to a stronger democracy. And now I am going to shut up before I start talking about Taylor and soft despotism.

[S. Richards]

For better or for worse that's basically what it boils down to. It would be nice to keep the military stateside and the taxpayers money going to more productive things though.

[Marchese 1st MRB]

Edited May 31, 2013 by Marchese 1st MRB

[Morton]

It's easy to brand war as simply the expression of corporate and personal interests, and that is the view that most of the left wing seems to have adopted these days. However, scholars have been studying war for millennia, it's causes, it's purpose etc... and we still don't have a definite answer. While personal and corporate interests definitely played a role in the US's latest wars, I do not think those are the sole factors, or even the predominant ones. Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Wilson and other theoreticians of international relations and warfare would each have different answers because such a phenomenon isn't so simple as to warrant a simple mention of "Yeah it was all for the oil.".

Then again it's perfectly legitimate and desirable for citizens to ask such questions of their government. During the city-state days of Athens the citizens voted on whether or not the city went to war or not because such important decisions could not be entrusted to a single person (Because they affected the whole of the city). More involvement by the people leads to a stronger democracy. And now I am going to shut up before I start talking about Taylor and soft despotism.

Peaker... What you said makes me assume you only read the title and posted this. Especially since you only mention the modern day. He doesn't say that wars are fought for "all the oil" or for corporate interests. The reason it is a racket, and this is clear in his full speech, is that a small minority make "these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent" and someone else foots the bills. Mostly it is soldiers who pay it it blood, their sanity, and even literally: "Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he (the soldiers) was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days."

"In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations."

[Peaker]

I read the excerpt you posted, but my point stands. This guy is saying war is being waged for corporate and banking interests, to make money in short, and I'm saying it's not as simple as that. While definitely profiteering is a facet of conflict, it's not the only one, and it's easy to place all the blame on the war profiteers and the billionaires that own parts of the military-industrial complex.

[S. Richards]

I read the excerpt you posted, but my point stands. This guy is saying war is being waged for corporate and banking interests, to make money in short, and I'm saying it's not as simple as that. While definitely profiteering is a facet of conflict, it's not the only one, and it's easy to place all the blame on the war profiteers and the billionaires that own parts of the military-industrial complex.

That "guy" was a highly decorated, two time Medal of Honor recepient U.S. Marine Major General. May I ask of your expertise in this area of such topics you know, besides going to college, sitting on the sidelines and such?

It all rotates back to profit. No profit, no war. It's as simple as that. People just don't wage war for the sake of population control. Point me to a war that wasn't a conquest of territory, resources, ideals or money.

Edited May 31, 2013 by S. Richards 1st MRB

[Peaker]

The fact he's decorated or not doesn't change anything to his argument. What you're trying to do here is an appeal to experience, which is a common logical fallacy. Ideals and money aren't the same thing by the way. I said there were a multitude of factors in play, not that profit wasn't one. Let us tale the crusades for example. There was definitely a religious reason, to chase the infidels out of the holy land, or so they said. However there was also a monetary reason, to partake in the riches of the middle east and open routes to the east. And there was a more social reason that pushed the church to advocate crusades, in order to reduce the infighting that was rampant amongst Christian lords back then.

The same analysis can be made of World War 2. Sure there was the Lebensraum incentive, the will to secure territory for the Germans to the east, however the revanchism that was prevalent in the population following the Versailles treaty also played a role, as well as the German military-industrial complex which wanted to seize the rich ressources of the east and make more weapons in order to propel the German economy out of the financial crisis it was stuck in in the 30s (A situation which is not unlike post-2008 America). Then there was the much spoken about racial imperative which played a role in making a war against the Soviets and Poles popular.

Maybe you shouldn't be so disdainful of college Richards, we learn quite a few interesting things, most importantly the ability to be critical of the information that is presented to us. It also happens that my major is in Conflict Studies and Human Rights (See, that was an appeal to experience, bad).

My point stands, you can't reduce a war to a single factor, to do so is simplistic. Does this Major General have a point? Certainly, but it's not only that.

[S. Richards]

A logical fallacy is assuming going to school makes you intelligent, when it only serves to make you educated. Scholars don't advise politicians on how to run military campaigns, Generals do, given that I would have to say for you to casually write this man off as having no knowledge of what he speaks of through experience is rather laughable. You know when you assume you only make an ass out of you and me, correct? The gain/profit from the Christian Crusades was to reclaim the sacred holy land in Jersualem from Muslims. You reclaim the land, force the opposition out and who stands to argue with your power and stand in your way? Not many, hence easy proliferation in wealth from the region. You understand politics back then works like today, right? If the social reasoning i.e general population under which you rule/advocate power wants you to do something, you do it to stay in power and profit. You speak of other variables that allow war's to be waged which is the basis of how they are given opportunity in the first place and why so many draft dodging politicians stand to profit from it. "Oh it's not just money, it's for religion." "Oh, it's not just for world domination and power, it's to annihilate entire ethnicities that caused us economic instability."

Answer me this, why waste valuable resources and money in a war unless you see a return?

There may be variables, but put them on a flow chart and I guarantee one way or another it all flows back to personal gain and profit.

Edited June 1, 2013 by S. Richards 1st MRB

[Perrone]

The fact he's decorated or not doesn't change anything to his argument. What you're trying to do here is an appeal to experience, which is a common logical fallacy. Ideals and money aren't the same thing by the way. I said there were a multitude of factors in play, not that profit wasn't one. Let us tale the crusades for example. There was definitely a religious reason, to chase the infidels out of the holy land, or so they said. However there was also a monetary reason, to partake in the riches of the middle east and open routes to the east. And there was a more social reason that pushed the church to advocate crusades, in order to reduce the infighting that was rampant amongst Christian lords back then.

The same analysis can be made of World War 2. Sure there was the Lebensraum incentive, the will to secure territory for the Germans to the east, however the revanchism that was prevalent in the population following the Versailles treaty also played a role, as well as the German military-industrial complex which wanted to seize the rich ressources of the east and make more weapons in order to propel the German economy out of the financial crisis it was stuck in in the 30s (A situation which is not unlike post-2008 America). Then there was the much spoken about racial imperative which played a role in making a war against the Soviets and Poles popular.

Maybe you shouldn't be so disdainful of college Richards, we learn quite a few interesting things, most importantly the ability to be critical of the information that is presented to us. It also happens that my major is in Conflict Studies and Human Rights (See, that was an appeal to experience, bad).

My point stands, you can't reduce a war to a single factor, to do so is simplistic. Does this Major General have a point? Certainly, but it's not only that.

No... your point does not stand at all Peaker. I have studied Latin/South American and some Asian history. And here's a fact, the majority of our actions in these area's, was for big corporations and businesses. If you talk to most historians, they'll tell you that it was big business who was responsible for aiming the American military machine at that direction. You can reduce many reasons why our country did what it did, because of private business interest.

Cuba and the Philippines? Major American businesses were trying to get in there for a long time and had been shot down by the Spanish... until the Spanish American War of 1898. Yellow Journalism might've lead to the masses wanting to avenge the Maine, but our government had been looking for an excuse to kick the Spanish out for years.

How about Latin and South America from the 1945 to the 1980's? Every country we intervened in was a somewhat stable representative republic or a populist government that the majority of people supported... who wouldn't be pushed over by big American businesses. Sure, some of them had issues, but if they wouldn't let the big American businesses have their way, it was either the US military or the CIA or helped plan the coup d'etat of that country because the leaders were "communists". Every coup d'etat that happened, was only when America supported it. When America did not support a coup, it failed.

How about Iran in 1953? It was on it's way to becoming a republic, removed the Shah from power, and was nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Britain couldn't do anything, so they got America to send in a team to arrest and remove Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh and reinstate the Shah; the Shah was backed by US military and CIA units until the 1970's when the Iranian people revolted.

If you look close enough behind the veil, you'll find major American businesses were trying, and failing, to get a foot hold in these countries (with the exception of Iran) because their respective governments were refusing to allow them to have a foot hold. Then the American military machine was brought in, justified by one reason or another.

And your example, using WWII, is what we call a strawman argument. WWII is what basically every historian you'll ever talk to refer to as a "necessary war" for defensive purposes. Japan was infringing and invaded several American territories like the Philippines, Guam, Wake Island and Aleutian Islands; Germany and Italy did not want to to involve us in the war until a later date, but because of the treaty with Japan, they were forced to declare war on us after Japan's attack. But after WWI, the German military industrial complex was almost completely gone because of the Treaty of Versailles; it had no influence on the German government after WWI, it was at Hitler's discretion that they came back. It was also at Hitler's discretion that various parts of nations and entire nations themselves be annexed; either because it was originally apart of Germany before WWI; or because he wanted the resources to use in an eventual war with the rest of Europe. The German people cheered on the Nazi government, but Hitler did what he did because one, he knew exactly what would get the majority German people on his side, and two, because he knew that Britain and France weren't interested in another major war. The fact that the British and French even upheld their agreement with Poland still amazes me today. If you actually check, a lot of American businesses were in business with Nazi Germany prior to the US government's commitment to the war... and the only reason why most of the corporations stopped doing business with the Germans and other Axis nations was because they got a better deal from the US, British, Soviet and other allied nations, then they would have from the Axis nations.

You look up what we did in Latin/South America, Middle East and Asia, we didn't need to intervene or start conflicts with the exception of Korea. South Korea was placed under American control until it was supposed to be reunited with the northern part which was under Soviet control in general elections in 1948... which never happened.

You are correct that in many conflicts, there is more then one reason why there was a war. But there are still many out there that you can find one single reason for why what happened, happened. Take Rome; almost every military action happened for one simple reason, wealth. The war with Carthage is the only wars that Rome fought that was for something other then the generals and their soldiers to make money off of. WWI and WWII were wars fought for a multitude of reasons as well. But what we did to Latin/South America, Asia, the Middle East, even in Africa since the late 1800's, can be attributed to corporate interests.

[M. Johnson 1st MRB]

[Armstrong 1st MRB]

I agree with what he is saying, I think in many cases throughout history, war (not civil war) has only benefited the few rather than the masses. The first wars were waged by rival chiefs and local rulers for more land and resources, then it became about prestige and who pays tribute and taxes to who, and now we have modern war; where its corporate or business interests covered over a shroud of legitimacy. This legitimacy spans across both the public and the military itself, the soldiers are told what they are doing and are given tasks that fit the logical pupose of fulfilling that goal, but that doesn't mean that the grunts are told the whole story.

Lets look at the current wars in the Middle East and why the UN is over there. Oil is the common assumption, and that may be a side goal, but I believe that they are there for other reasons that involve spheres of influence. Before the wars in the middle east, the U.S. (And the UN, we might as well include them too) didn't have a substantial foothold anywhere in the theatre. Now, since the Soviets were gone they couldn't use them as a reason to go in, but we all know the reasons they ended up using. Currently there are over 112,000 troops in Afghanistan alone, over half of them are U.S. troops and although they are promised (along with our Canadian troops) to come home soon, I doubt it, and I'll tell you why.

My Anthropology Professor explained it to us, he said that it is in the UN's interest to have a large force stationed in the Middle East, along with numerous military installations and various other forces stationed around in and around it because although Afghanistan and Iraq are no threat to them, what if Iran, Pakistan, or another country in the area were to act up? Then they have a quite substantial army is within spitting distance of the border. It gives them a huge amount of influence and control over the area, even if it is not a openly stated fact. Its a valuable position to be in if they ever want to try to influence things to their desires. Not that it benefits the soldiers dying over there weekly or their families.

[Zorbanos 1st MRB]

You are correct that in many conflicts, there is more then one reason why there was a war. But there are still many out there that you can find one single reason for why what happened, happened. Take Rome; almost every military action happened for one simple reason, wealth. The war with Carthage is the only wars that Rome fought that was for something other then the generals and their soldiers to make money off of. WWI and WWII were wars fought for a multitude of reasons as well. But what we did to Latin/South America, Asia, the Middle East, even in Africa since the late 1800's, can be attributed to corporate interests.

Yeah but even Rome's war with Carthage was fought for control of territory, domination of the Mediterranean, etc. Which speaks to the point you're making as is Richards: just because they are other reasons involved in going to war, doesn't mean that benefitting from that war is not the main goal i.e. economically, financially, or what have you. I mean, DUH! why go to war if you won't benefit from it? Yes, there are of course other reasons, taking Peaker's WWII example, like the Nazis and the Soviet just flat out hating each other, hardcore right vs hardcore left. but its silly to think that that was without a doubt and without an argument the main reason for going to war with Russia. Its a resource rich nation, that was unprepared for war = invade!

Btw Morton this was a badass speech, where di you find this / see it?

[Guest]

Interesting reading. For the most part I have to agree, except some war is righteous and glorious. I want to believe in good versus evil and I do not want to believe that what my Grandfather did during the war was for the benefit of some economic think tank.