Butler Shaffer on Where Is Smedley When We Need Him?
Smedley Butler is a name with which you may not be familiar, even though he twice won the Congressional Medal of Honor. If he were to appear on television today, he would be identified as "Maj. General Smedley Butler, USMC (ret.)" But even if he were still alive, he would not appear on any network television news shows because, late in life, he openly expressed his opposition to the war system. He went on to expose the symbiotic relationship existing between the institutional interests of corporate America and the state. Many former top generals and admirals have written memoirs around the theme "war is hell," but Gen. Butler went a step further, writing a book titled War Is a Racket.
Smedley defined a racket as "something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people." War, he goes on, "is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious" of rackets. Reflecting upon his own early 20th century career, he noted that "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." He related how he had helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests, Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank, a number of Central American countries more pleasant for Wall Street interests, the Dominican Republic more conducive to the sugar industry, and China more compatible with the interests of Standard Oil. Then, after observing how he had helped supply the coercive, deadly force to advance corporate interests throughout various parts of the world, Butler added: "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." You can see that his book does for adults what The Emperor’s New Clothes does for children.
Fellow leatherneck MajGen Smedley Darlington Butler was one of the most decorated Marines in the history of the Corps. He also knew more about war and it's political motives than anyone currently employed at the Pentagon. Read his book and turn off Faux News for a while. Contrary to what some of my detractors think, the war in Iraq wasn't about fighting for my "freedom" or keeping my family safe. No Iraqi ever infringed on my freedom or threatened my family. Even the Administration has stopped peddling that lie.
Link courtesy of Casey Williams.
—-
This entry also posted at Stand Down.
The fact that war is mostly driven by economics and the protection of economics is not news.
Interesting yet flawed view that of Mr. Butler. You do realize that it was the Japanese the ones that attacked… right?
I found this particularly amusing “The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline.” He then goes off to say how the restriction is more than enough for defense. Anyone has any idea how far were the Japanese aircraft carries in the Pearl Harbour attack?
Posted by loanguy on April 29, 2003 07:14 PM
BTW from: http://www.spinaweb.ie/showcase/2001/spin1112/spinaweb/lessons/pearl.html
“The Japanese fleet arrived 490 miles off Oahu Island on the 6th of December. By 0600 on7th of December the fleet was 275 miles north of Pearl Harbour. The Japanese aircraft were flying towards the harbour by 0700. The estimation by the Japanese that all the fleet was in the harbour was almost perfect.”
Smedley Butler for Secretary of Defense!
Posted by loanguy on April 29, 2003 07:26 PM
loanguy: Pearl Harbor is your smoking gun of justification for attacking Iraq? Please. There is much evidence for AND against the idea of the FDR Administration having advance knowledge of a planned attack by Japan that you’d better find a different analogy. Theh istory on what really transpired prior to Pearl Harbor is clouded at best.
Posted by James Landrith on April 30, 2003 09:38 AM
James Landrith: The whole story was about Maj. General Smedley Butler and his opposition to war and how this was expressed in his writings {writings which happened prior to WWII and after WWI}. All I did was point out that his point of view was wrong in at least one item. I never mentioned anything about Iraq…. I don’t even think there was an Iraq. Please follow the {read his book} link in the original post and read up a little bit.
Disclaimer: I did not read the whole thing…. The answer to the meaning of life might be hidden in the stuff that I missed 🙂
Posted by loanguy@work on April 30, 2003 09:51 AM
“… war is mostly driven by economics and the protection of economics –”
The Hobson/Lenin economic theory of imperialism strikes again! Sorry, afraid I have to disagree. Wars are primarily about *power*, not economics. They’re fought between those seeking to overturn the status quo and those seeking to maintain it. Hans Morgenthau discusses economic theories of imperialism in “Politics Among Nations”:
“All economic explanations of imperialism, the refined as well as the primitive, fail the test of historic experience. The economic interpretation of imperialism erects a limited historic experience, based on a few isolated cases, into a universal law of history. It is indeed true that in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries a small number of wars were waged primarily, if not exclusively, for economic objectives. The classic examples are the Boer War of 1899-1902 and the Chaco War between Bolivia and Paraguay from 1932-35. The main responsibility of British mining interests for the Boer War can hardly be doubted. The Chaco War is considered by some to have been primarily a war between two oil companies for the control of oil fields.
“But during the entire period of mature capitalism, no war, with the exception of the Boer War, was waged by major powers exclusively or even predominately for economic objectives. The Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the Franco-German War of 1870, for instance, had no economic objectives of any importance. They were political wars, indeed imperialistic wars, fought for the purpose of establishing a new distribution of power, first in favor of Prussia within Germany and then in favor of Germany within the European state system. The Crimean War of 1854-56, the Spanish-American War of 1898, the Russo-Japanese War of1904-05, the Turko-Italian War of 1911-12, and the several Balkan Wars show economic objectives only in a subordinate role, if they show them at all. The two world wars were certainly political wars, whose stake was the domination of Europe, if not of the world. Naturally, victory in these wars brought economic advantages and, more particularly, defeat brought in its wake economic losses. But these effects were not the real issue; they were only by-products of the political consequences of victory and defeat. Still less were these economic effects the motives that determined in the minds of the responsible statesmen the issue of war and peace.
“The economic theories of imperialism are thus not supported by the experience of that historic period which they suppose to be intimately connected, if not identical, with imperialism; that is, the period of capitalism. Furthermore, the main period of colonial expansion which the economic theories tend to identify with imperialism precedes the age of mature capitalism and cannot be attributed to the inner contradictions of the decaying capitalist system. In comparison with those of the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries, the colonial acquisitions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries are small.”
Posted by Russil Wvong on April 30, 2003 12:49 PM
Hmmm so power for the sake of power?
I do not know about that. The term “power” can encompass a lot. Wouldn’t the difference be mostly academic?
Posted by loanguy@work on April 30, 2003 12:55 PM
“The term ‘power’ can encompass a lot.”
Sure. It’s intangible, so it’s not easy to define. Hans Morgenthau defines it as the ability to make other people do what you want, whether by consent or by coercion.
In international politics, an important concept is the *balance of power*. Peace depends on a stable balance of power. That’s what most wars are fought over: one side is trying to overthrow the existing balance of power and establish a new balance, the other side is trying to maintain the existing balance of power.
It’s human nature to see one’s own power over others as natural and justified, while resenting others’ power over oneself as unjustified and tyrannical. That’s the driving force behind wars: one side doesn’t want to submit to the other side.
By the way, this is why it’s important to treat defeated enemies with respect. If not, they’re not going to submit to your power, and you’ll have to go to war with them again. (As with Germany in World War II.)
Economics doesn’t have much to do with it. You can’t convince people to accept your power by telling them it’s better for their material well-being. It’s a matter of pride.
Posted by Russil Wvong on May 1, 2003 04:22 PM
Hello from toronto—Butler would roll in his grave if he would serve under Jr.Bush. However Iwould like to remind your readers that England had knowledge of the pearl-harbour attack weeks in advance. All about getting America envolved in the WWll. Lets not forget that America had a embargo againist Japan. Butler is correct it is all about trade and money—Japan and Germany both were becoming a threat to world trade.
The Americans were asleep and in Xmas sprites during the pearl harbour attack . Japan had a right and why the embargo? Mafia at its best !
I recommend that everyone watch World link or fstv and C-span. Also get a real handle what Semdley was talking about go on the web site called Jewwatch–
-God help America!
Posted by george archers on May 6, 2003 10:09 AM
Smedley defined a racket as “something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people.” War, he goes on, “is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious” of rackets.
We avoid war, but others thrive.
Posted by on May 13, 2003 05:36 PM