"War Is a Racket" - by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (1933)

[END_THE_FED]

Is war a racket?
At least one Major General of the USMC thought so, and he spoke about it in 1933.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig12/butler-s1.1.1.html

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"War is a racket. It always has been[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious..........It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes"
[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"...........[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War..........[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]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?............."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven't paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children's children probably still will be paying the cost of that war."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]
"[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Who provides the profits........[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]We all pay them – in taxation............[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.........."[/FONT]

 

[eye95]

War is necessary for those who would defend their God-given rights: Life, Liberty, and Property.

 

[skidmark]

War is necessary for those who would defend their God-given rights: Life, Liberty, and Property.

Although war is not necessary, it is what usually takes place while folks are waiting for diplomacy to produce results.

No, I do not believe in unicorn farts and skittle rainbows, and yes I have participated in the activities before the treaty was signed. I just don't believe that war is necessary, although it often seems inevitable. Especially against those who wish to deny others of their rights.

stay safe.

 

[END_THE_FED]

I don't think the author was saying that war is never necessary.

He was critical of those who profit from war.
He feels that the ones who profit most risk the least and the ones who risk the most profit the least.

He was speaking from experience.

I am not sure if you read the whole thing or not, but if not I would encourage you to do so. He makes some good points.

 

[eye95]

Although war is not necessary, it is what usually takes place while folks are waiting for diplomacy to produce results.

No, I do not believe in unicorn farts and skittle rainbows, and yes I have participated in the activities before the treaty was signed. I just don't believe that war is necessary, although it often seems inevitable. Especially against those who wish to deny others of their rights.

stay safe.

Those who believe that war is not necessary, will end up fighting in one anyway. They won't have started it and won't be prepared, but war cannot be avoided.

If you want peace, prepare for war. It'll happen less often and be less severe, but it will happen.

 

[eye95]

I don't think the author was saying that war is never necessary.

He was critical of those who profit from war.
He feels that the ones who profit most risk the least and the ones who risk the most profit the least.

He was speaking from experience.

I am not sure if you read the whole thing or not, but if not I would encourage you to do so. He makes some good points.

Might as well complain about those who profit from feeding folks, or from constructing housing, or from developing medicines, or from curing illnesses, or from educating our children, or from...

 

[DevinWKuska]

Ya know... War isnt great for anyone as far as daily lives. Some miss thier husbands, fathers, mothers, sisters or brothers who are off in some foreign country fighting. But IMO the REALITY is America was pretty much founded on war, and the American people make money off of war.

Dont believe me? Ask anyone who works at say... Boeing if the company makes more during times of peace or during times 9of conflict. Even if you work in say metal industry. The cost of certain metals(namely Steel, Brass, copper, and lead) go up. War is not pretty but after every war that I am aware of the US of A see's an economic boom. I know for the Pierce county area anyways the soldiers returning home with fat wallets are pretty much what is keeping alot of people employed.

 

[rotorhead]

Might as well complain about those who profit from feeding folks, or from constructing housing, or from developing medicines, or from curing illnesses, or from educating our children, or from...

I fail to see how any of those other industries ever had the power to draft people into submission by threat of jail in order to make them conform. I guess that throughout history there have been cases where people have been forced into labor but never on such a large scale as for those leaders that have used men for war when taken as a whole.

It's easier to swallow when sweetened by words such as Honor, Duty, and Country, but when you take a hard look at it, it's nothing but smoke and mirrors. The facts are glaringly present to confirm that, in literally untold cases throughout history, those that start wars will prove themselves dishonorable and will hide in the shadows as other men carry the actual risks of war.

It is even more evident today that not only will those that pronounce themselves above the fray of battle do all they can to avoid actual combat, but that they will also find ways to profit from it.

And what of those that actually fight it? Perhaps a nice piece of metal shaped into something which has been lifted by empty words to a high status will suffice? Maybe we could make some half-hearted attempt to compensate their injuries will shut them up? Yes, perhaps we could all name a day in their honor! Pleasant pats on the back no doubt, but hardly worth risking our one and only life over, are they?

But, more on topic...

The General made some very valid points, as do many today as well. But, although it's easy to prove that some people do, in fact, profit from war, what is harder to prove is that wars are created to make a profit. Not impossible, just harder to prove.

Ahh yes- I forgot the ol' disclaimer that I have served in no less than four deployments. I only add this to lend credibility to my words and to show they come from someone who actually went, as opposed to one who hasn't. Other than the above stated reason, this disclaimer serves no other purpose. It is not made to assume a superior insight, but simply to add a background picture of understanding.

 

[marshaul]

The cost of certain metals(namely Steel, Brass, copper, and lead) go up. War is not pretty but after every war that I am aware of the US of A see's an economic boom.

First of all, war is the health of the state. The effect to which you're referring is not a good way to bolster an economy. It creates a never-ending train of state-feeding pork.

Secondly, it didn't happen this time anyway. The economy has just been getting worse and worse, the whole time. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but maybe it's gotten to the point where too much drain from non-value-adding economic sectors (military-industrial stuff is generally not value-adding) means that too much of our nation's economic potential has been usurped for the economy to be capable of bouncing back.

To put it another way, the government has too large a share of the GDP. There isn't enough money free for the private, value-adding sectors anymore for the economy to grow. The solution is to drastically cut government revenue, which means military spending (among a slew of other things).

No matter how I look at it, war (as I have lived to see it) benefits the state, but it only hurts me.

A strong state does not a strong people make. Quite the contrary. A strong state makes a dependent, coddled citizenry incapable of standing on their own two feet.

Ahh yes- I forgot the ol' disclaimer that I have served in no less than four deployments. I only add this to lend credibility to my words and to show they come from someone who actually went, as opposed to one who hasn't. Other than the above stated reason, this disclaimer serves no other purpose. It is not made to assume a superior insight, but simply to add a background picture of understanding.

Would it be odd to thank you for your service as well as your rational opinion and input?

 

[marshaul]

Might as well complain about those who profit from feeding folks, or from constructing housing, or from developing medicines, or from curing illnesses, or from educating our children, or from...

Except, those thing aren't even potentially aggressive. Minor quibbles, I know...

 

[Citizen]

I read War is a Racket for the first time last year. Pretty impressive.

Eisenhower's speech against letting industry and military form a sort of coalition speaks to the same thing, entrenched.*

Throw in American intelligence disinformation, and we have a recipe for human disaster and misery.

Anybody pay attention to the lastest noises about the military with regard to Libya?

*You can see the relevant part of Ike's speech here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B0NohzPPL6Y&feature=related

 

[Citizen]

Might as well complain about those who profit from feeding folks, or from constructing housing, or from developing medicines, or from curing illnesses, or from educating our children, or from...

Funny you should mention that. While hunting up Ike's farewell warning against a military-industrial complex, I caught part of a video where Ike complained [paraphrase]: We spend vast numbers of bushels of wheat on a single fighter plane. One bomber takes what could be spent to build homes for 8,000 people.

 

[rotorhead]

First of all, war is the health of the state. The effect to which you're referring is not a good way to bolster an economy. It creates a never-ending train of state-feeding pork.

Secondly, it didn't happen this time anyway. The economy has just been getting worse and worse, the whole time. Correlation doesn't imply causation, but maybe it's gotten to the point where too much drain from non-value-adding economic sectors (military-industrial stuff is generally not value-adding) means that too much of our nation's economic potential has been usurped for the economy to be capable of bouncing back.

To put it another way, the government has too large a share of the GDP. There isn't enough money free for the private, value-adding sectors anymore for the economy to grow. The solution is to drastically cut government revenue, which means military spending (among a slew of other things).

No matter how I look at it, war (as I have lived to see it) benefits the state, but it only hurts me.

A strong state does not a strong people make. Quite the contrary. A strong state makes a dependent, coddled citizenry incapable of standing on their own two feet.



Would it be odd to thank you for your service as well as your rational opinion and input?

lol no it wouldn't be odd. My former self is appreciative of such accolades

 

[DevinWKuska]

Funny you should mention that. While hunting up Ike's farewell warning against a military-industrial complex, I caught part of a video where Ike complained [paraphrase]: We spend vast numbers of bushels of wheat on a single fighter plane. One bomber takes what could be spent to build homes for 8,000 people.

Yes but 1 bomber creates the need and the jobs to rebuild those 8,000 jobs. Yet another way war is profitable yes? Look at france, they wanted no part in Iraq but were fighting tooth and nail to get the rebuild contracts.

 

[marshaul]

Yes but 1 bomber creates the need and the jobs to rebuild those 8,000 jobs. Yet another way war is profitable yes? Look at france, they wanted no part in Iraq but were fighting tooth and nail to get the rebuild contracts.

Are you familiar with the window breaking fallacy?

Because your opinion, while amusing, has very little to do with non-Keynesian economics.

Are you a Keynesian?

 

[END_THE_FED]

Are you familiar with the window breaking fallacy?

Because your opinion, while amusing, has very little to do with non-Keynesian economics.

Are you a Keynesian?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

 

[Citizen]

Yes but 1 bomber creates the need and the jobs to rebuild those 8,000 jobs. Yet another way war is profitable yes? Look at france, they wanted no part in Iraq but were fighting tooth and nail to get the rebuild contracts.

Well, yes, of course. The point is that by overspending on military we have military, and distortion in housing and food, etc. Whereas by spending only what is absolutely necessary on military, we have enough military plus housing and food, etc.

From another angle, if Rapiscan or Rocketdyne or Northrop Grumman wants profits, let them farm or become home builders.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

From another angle, if Rapiscan or Rocketdyne or Northrop Grumman wants profits, let them farm or become home builders.

As developers they'd still make money as a regular working contractor profits seem to be a thing of history....sigh....well I can't speak for farmers but as a home builder I am on the precipice of disaster.