Is War really a racket?

LTC Tom Jones — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 08:36:32 -0400

Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, thought so/said so in 1935. As a two time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, he surely earned the right to his opinion.

Response by CW5 Jack Cardwell made Aug 1 at 2018 8:43 AM

CW5 Jack Cardwell — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 08:43:46 -0400

In truth in what he said.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Aug 1 at 2018 9:12 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:12:17 -0400

Excellent share sir.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2018 9:22 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:22:25 -0400

To add to the conversation, I think this should be added from the same book as your quote.

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and 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 benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might 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.”
― Smedley D. Butler, War is a Racket: The Antiwar Classic by America's Most Decorated Soldier.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2018 9:32 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 09:32:45 -0400

I believe it has been established that he did indeed make these statements, to a convention of the VFW in the 1930s. If true, then I also believe his insights were mirrored by those of Eisenhower, and even Kennedy...both of whom warned us against the unseen forces of power manipulating mankind for their own profit.

The experience and wisdom of these men is not in question.

What is in question is what "we" do about it, and whether or not those of us who have continued to raise our hands in promise to participate if required, have done so ill-advisedly.

For my own part, I believe that even when faced with total knowledge of any such manipulation, young people will continue to volunteer to serve. I'm certain I would have made the same choice...even if I had been wise enough to consider their words (which at the time, I was not). Why? Because there is enormous power in the sense of having "paid into" a system before one has the "right" to question it...let alone make what small contributions they can to influence a more positive outcome.

That is an admittedly idealistic...rather than practical viewpoint.

Unfortunately, in the back of our collective consciousness, we understand what the price would be for willful and organized resistance to that call. If all the ethical youth of a generation simply refused to make that commitment, less ethical mercenaries and adventure seekers would. If our Armed Forces became nothing more than "hired thugs" for a rapacious, economic and political juggernaut...it wouldn't be long before the threat of that force being leveraged against the People would be realized.

In that sense, I hope better people do continue to volunteer to serve in the Military, and fight when and where necessary. Policy is made at the highest levels, but enacted at the lowest. From the highest ranking general officer who challenges an unlawful order...to the lowest ranking private solider who projects mercy, compassion and justice down their gun sights...we serve as the greatest defense against atrocity, abuse and tyranny.

I am reminded of St. Maurice and the Theban Legion, Major Hugh Thompson, and LT Michael Murphy...warriors who risked everything to stand up for a higher purpose in war.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Aug 1 at 2018 10:03 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:03:07 -0400

War is many things but I wouldn't describe it as a "racket". A racket is a paradigm of criminal activity. While there are "war crimes", war itself is not a crime. War is about taking control of people, territory, resources, by force. And yes, by that definition, there is a war raging in America today, a very uncivil war. Freedom, liberty, individuality are under assault. It has been for at least a century. And those wanting to take control have been winning because We the People, the individualists who value our freedom and liberty haven't been fighting back, at least not until now.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2018 10:10 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:10:20 -0400

Yes - a lot of people profit off war. It's no secret.
Side note: I hate when things say "winner" or "won" the Medal of Honor. You can't "win" it.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2018 10:34 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:34:43 -0400

The thing about war is that it follows the same rules as economics, so that the same drivers of profit and loss apply there as well. I am a red-blooded American and proud of my country, but many of the things that our adversaries would say we do wrong they'd likewise say about the way business is conducted.
1. There is temptation to open additional fronts to gain "new markets" for warfighting capabilities and outpace your competitor (enemy) in getting market penetration first. (see WWI and II for prime examples) Mark my words, a cyber war is coming... if for no other reason than to test capabilities to do so. I also see a battleground unfolding over who controls information... and that is happening right now.
2. Innovations lead to success, and nations that refuse to innovate or do so slowly are crowded out and marginalized. (examples of this abound so much in history I can't even begin to list them)
2a. Innovations are expensive; so it is far better to steal another's R&D than come up with it yourself. A robust industrial espionage capability should be a treasured and guarded asset. (Hello, China)
2b. Often the best innovations are cheap, like an assembly line. (Hello, China)
3. Success in war, as in business, requires expenditure of capital to succeed. Trying to wage war on the cheap cuts corners and leads to inefficiencies with tangible consequences. (see Operation Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom, Libya, Syria...)
4. Sometimes, a nation (or corporation) goes on a campaign to seize assets in a hostile takeover as a product of raw, unadulterated greed because just being prosperous is not enough (see the Indian Wars, Mexican-American War, and arguably the Spanish American War. Crimea and Dombass provide contemporary examples.)
5. Many times, an internal crisis can make a nation (or corporation) reorganize and emerge stronger than before. (see the American Revolution and Civil War)
6. Competition breeds strength and innovation; dominance breeds complacency, malaise, and stagnation (see recent administrations' foreign policy)
7. Abundance of supply leads to a high standard of living and quality of life; scarcity of resources leads to social disorder and conflict (see Venezuela, sub-Saharan Africa)
8. If you can't beat a competitor at what they're good at, do something else better... especially if it makes the old way of doing business obsolete. That "something else" will be extremely lucrative for whoever discovers it, as everyone will want to buy this new thing. (Sword meets armor, infantry meets cavalry, cavalry meets pikemen, spearmen meets archers, Armor meets bullets, bullets meet tanks, tanks meet AT missiles, AT missile meet active defense systems... and on the wheel turns) I think that someday soon we will find out that all of gee-whiz gizmos don't amount to a hill of beans if the enemy turns the lights out with an EMP or cyber attack.

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Aug 1 at 2018 10:37 AM

SGT Tony Clifford — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 10:37:57 -0400

It depends on your prospective. Do some people profit? Yes. Do a lot of people die? Yes. Does it matter to you whether or not someone will get rich selling you weapons to fight your enemies? Probably not. There's most definitely a war racket, but warfare isn't a racket. People are selling things that have genuine value in the context of combat. While it may be distasteful to some that people are selling these things for a profit, they are providing goods and services that cost time and resources to produce. Why should they not be able to receive a profit from the sale of these things? If you think that we engage in war specifically to generate wealth, that's conspiracy theory. We haven't taken any land after a war since the Spanish American War. We have never stolen resources from a country we've occupied during wars, unless you count the annexation of territory, which we haven't done since the Spanish American War. So I'm not sure how we can say it's a racket. Additionally, the earning of a Medal of Honor doesn't make someone's position on a subject unassailable.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2018 11:29 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:29:46 -0400

Some people profit financially from war and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If you provide goods and services that are used during war, anyone would expect your profits to go up when the demand for them go up. That's basic economics and there's nothing wrong with that in my book. But, if those people who profit from war somehow use their power and influence to move us toward war for the reason of getting rich, they need to be drawn and quartered.

Response by SP5 Peter Keane made Aug 1 at 2018 11:39 AM

SP5 Peter Keane — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 11:39:06 -0400

We were taught in BCT that we may get an MOH, but the only CMH is a Casket with Metal Handles

Response by SSG Steven Mangus made Aug 1 at 2018 12:05 PM

SSG Steven Mangus — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 12:05:52 -0400

I would have to agree..a necessary evil..

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2018 8:01 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 20:01:01 -0400

MajGen Smedley Butler was also contacted by a group of men who wanted to overthrow FDR in a coup called "The Business Plot."

Response by Jerry Rivas made Aug 1 at 2018 8:12 PM

Jerry Rivas — Wed, 01 Aug 2018 20:12:14 -0400

Even Dwight Eisenhower warned the US about the rise of the Military/Industrial complex.

Response by SPC Joseph Wojcik made May 9 at 2019 10:01 AM

SPC Joseph Wojcik — Thu, 09 May 2019 10:01:51 -0400

Of course he was entitled to his opinion and had the right to express it, we have something called the First Amendment (for now, at least).
I agree with him for the most part, but I don't think war is about making money, it's mainly about destroying the sovereignty of nations and imposing the will a few onto the masses.