Must read. Was told to read it by a former Army pilot. Been telling everyone to read it since.
Reading the comments below, I come to understand that many are missing the point of the essay, or speech as it was intended originally.
For modern readers, Butler's words are not to be taken directly but in context. Butler's point is that war is a racket. That is it. Funny right. If you are to ignore all the details about the casualties and who said what and who did what, you are still left with the essence of the speech. War is a racket. Repeat after me :) If you instill the mindset that war is a racket then all the pieces fall into place. It becomes very clear that war has no regard for human life. That it is detached from reality of life and death.
"Eliot A. Cohen, an official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that Mr. Obama’s trips to Walter Reed may have been the reason, and that future presidents should avoid such visits.
“A president has to be psychologically prepared to send people into harm’s way and to get a good night’s sleep,” Mr. Cohen said. “And anything they do that might cripple them that way means they’re not doing their job.”" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama-walter-r...
"they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what?
Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up.
Additionally, presidents should visit hospitals in Syria maybe. Maybe then they will not make the same actions.
> "they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what?
At some point, a US president may need to send soldiers into a situation in which they will very likely die, in order to win a war. It has happened before, and it may happen again. If the president allows visits to wounded veterans to weaken his resolve, the consequences could be very bad. That's what Eliot Cohen is alluding to. He is not suggesting that the president should not care -- he is suggesting that the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens.
> Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up.
Nobody suggested that the president should not worry about the lives of soldiers. Your interpretation is unreasonably uncharitable and is in fact a straw man.
I suppose this can be understood in the context where the entire fate of a nation actually depends on the president being able to sleep well and do what is needed. There have been instances in world history were this has been the case for various nations. Not so often for US in past centuries, though.
That a president should be a callous bastard and just do what's good for the military industrial complex sounds pretty insane.
There are three kinds of wars. It's right in the first paragraph of the article:
> 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.
If the president needs to win a war to defend our homes or for the Bill of Rights, then (according to this reasoning) they should not go to Walter Reed. War is usually a racket, yes, but it's hard to know exactly when the cure is worse than the disease. Probably is right now, sure, but the Revolutionary War? Civil War? Fought for economic reasons, yes, but also for some correct reasons.
i say this for several reasons. One, Smedley D Butler is one of perhaps just three former US Marines universally regarded as demi-gods (the other two are Sgt. Dan Daly and Gen. Chesty Puller). Their official photographs are everywhere, and statement alleged to have been made by them are quoted like scripture among active duty marines. Gen Butler aside from attaining the rank of major general, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor--twice. (Sgt. Daly, my personal hero, had two as well and a Navy Cross, the second-highest award in the USMC, equivalent to the Army's DSC; Chesty had no MoH, just five Navy Crosses, which is still pretty good).
So here he is at the end of his superb 33-year career, writing a book in which he declares that war is a Racket. And by "Racket" he is clearly using the term in the precise sense: "[a] service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist."--in other words, what organized crime does.
> "Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints."
from the OP (a except from the Book, which in turn was based on a speech given by Butler two years prior): "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."
Needless to say, i never heard about this book while serving in the USMC as a Sergeant.
second, this book was published in 1935--Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II.
I thought this was well understood as well as documented? For example, Chomsky has been speaking about this for decades and his message seems to be fact based.
At least as a non-US citizen, the only war I'm happy about US participated was WW2[0]. This is not to say anything about the mere military pressure US has applied but only of active campaigns. Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.
As a professional soldier, if you can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall street (or domino theorists in Washington) I will gladly do research on them.
[0] (for not allowing Soviet Union to dominate Europe - although, a great portion of their war effort was fought with US supplies so maybe third reich and Soviet Union would have just beaten each other to death).
Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II
Yeah, it goes as far back as you like. This is a great thesis, but people are viewing it as presenting a dichotomy by focusing on one side of the equation.
War is a racket. It's also necessary at times. Both things are true. The reason why we don't keep standing armies around and create huge military-industrial complexes around war is that the racket side of things tends to take over.
Related is President (and 5 Star General) Eisenhower's speech warning against the military industrial complex in his Farewell Address. [1]
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
This speech is cited as the first use of the term "military-industrial complex".
I'll add "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man", by a less well known author, which is along similar lines.[1]
It's interesting that Eisenhower and Butler blew the whistle essentially after their careers were over rather than in the middle of their careers. I guess one generally does not attain great heights in one's respective career by being the sort that doesn't want to play the game. It still speaks volumes that those who are masters of their games would turn whistleblowers at all, though -- even if at a rather late stage.
One of the reasons why I'm optimistic for a Donald Trump presidency is that finally Americas ugly policies have an ugly face to go with them. Every single one of Americas Presidents, from Obama to Reagan, JFK to both Bushes all maintained a veneer of respectability and decency. All of them cultivated a diplomatic and "statemanlike" appearance, all while continuing absolutely barbaric foreign policies designed to maintain American hegemony and appease industrial interests, no matter what the cost. Trump, on the other hand, refuses to play by this charade and indeed "tells it like it is".
American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American actions will now be apparent for all to see.
> American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American actions will now be apparent for all to see.
Critical voices from where? Outside the United States?
It can extremely easily be more "evil" than it has been. If the USA instated a policy to wipe out all people of a certain race, that would be much more evil than anything it has done post-WWII right?
I'm curious, would the #DraftOurDaughters counter-Clinton campaign meme be an example of what you are talking about? Hopefully you are familiar with that, if not Clinton openly spoke about escalating some ugly potential all out war situations, and some very smart meme artist linked it to the reality of a draft for women.
"But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill"
I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming
majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. It would seem to me that
they are the ones who pay "the biggest part of the bill".
Not that I would deny that the people doing the mass murder can themselves become
the victims of war. But I'd personally have more sympathy for civilians who are not
trying to murder others but are themselves murdered.
"Modern" is a relative term. When Butler was fighting around the turn of the the 19th century in the Philippines and elsewhere, as many(or more) men died from disease, dysentery, and infection then they did "in battle". Many conscripted men died before they ever had the chance to kill someone in the name of empire.
It's very unfortunate that this 80 year old polemic by Butler is still radical in this day and age, when so many are chomping at the bit to wage war.
Let's not overlook the toll that murder takes on those pressured and conditioned into being willing and able to do so. PTSD rates among recent Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 20% [1]. More veterans commit suicide after coming home than are KIA.
I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. It would seem to me that they are the ones who pay "the biggest part of the bill"
Focusing on this aspect is kinda lame since the main point of Butler's message was that someone suffers, and someone else profits, and that military action is generally taken for monetary profit, and not for any higher purpose.
My recollection from history class was that the proportion of civilian:military deaths in war in the 2000s is basically the inverse of how it was in the early 1900s.
> I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians.
This may be true, but a soldier probably has a far higher likelihood of dying in a war than a civilian, thereby "paying the bill." This means that in expectation, each individual soldier pays a higher value of the bill in comparison to each individual citizen.
His use of the term "bill" refers to the cost of US participation in war; All of the wars he's talking about took place outside the US, so de minimis US citizen casualties
still i would agree, and i bet Gen Butler would as well that civilians suffer the "biggest part of the" damage, but Butler's statement that you quoted was more specific.
In 1933, someone associated with the Du Pont interests tried to hire Butler to organize a coup to overthrow Roosevelt. It's never been clear how serious a plot this was, but Butler didn't go along and the plot died.[1]
There was a lot of fascination with Fascism and dictators around this time, a now creepy movie from this time is "Gabriel Over the Whitehouse", which promotes the idea of a Roosevelt-like president becoming dictator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg
If you pay a visit to DC, there's a hill you can go to that overlooks the Pentagon. It's illuminating how many aerospace and other government contractor logos are on buildings surrounding the space. It's like a giant star shaped trough with animals of all shapes and sizes come to feed.
I'm reminded of the money Halliburton made in both the Gulf Wars. And then they promptly moved their headquarters to the MiddleEast, to avoid any scrutiny.
Where in the middle east do you mean Halliburton has their HQ? I was curious so I did a bit of checking and it seems they're headquartered in Houston, Texas.
A US company that provides services to the military did move its HQs to the ME, but you got the name wrong. I don't recall it myself, but it's not Halliburton.
I believe the company moved to Dubai or some other city.
> There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights.
The problem is that you can justify almost any conflict as ultimately meeting these criteria. If you let someone else become too powerful isn't that a de facto threat to your home? If you don't defend rights abroad, don't you threaten the extinction of rights at home?
That's why we do rely on the morality of our leaders. Which seems to be ropey at best.
No, it isn't and that's typical USA thinking pattern - we have to be the best and control everything, then we're "safe" (oh and we'll earn some might good ol' $ too).
Coincidentally, I told my brother to read this last weekend.
Smedley Butler is a brilliant orator. He manages to distill social and political outrage/abuse into a language that the everyman can connect with, and without sounding like a populist communist sympathizer. He achieved the latter by often stressing the importance of individual as well as community action. He used the term "Americanism" do describe this socially engaged entrepreneur attitude.
Things like this are why I think we've strayed very far from presidents Truman or Eisenhower, very opposed in their time, but so much closer to what we need today than we've really had since. JFK and Reagan at least inspired the population, and I wouldn't mind seeing another similar president, but I don't think today's political climate could tolerate any of them today.
This General was features in an episode of Untold History of the United States. Don't let the fact that Oliver Stone produced this deter you from watching it. I found it a very good, albeit quick, overview of history of the last 100 years. 12 episodes, on Netflix. Weirdly, the last two episodes are really the first two, so start there, the wrap back around to episode 1.
"The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted." This is a great quote. Never gonna happen. But what a change that would make. If we instituted a "draft" of the financial and industrial systems, e.g. made them pay for war the way drafted soldiers pay-- without profit-- without choice-- we wouldn't go to war. The powerful and wealthy would never allow their profits to disappear into that kind of a void.
Also "A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies" will churn the stomach almost as much as the stories of the rise of the Ottoman Empire by (sssh redacted religion) piles of heads or the accounts of the Armenian Genocide.
What people often don't often realise that in the 20's 30's racket was a slang term for any job / profession it had yet to take on its illegal connotations
Not sure where you got this idea, but reading Butler's speech should make it clear the kind of connotations the word racket had in the 30's.
"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."
Makes me really sad to read that old piece with so many things I thought myself. When will we commit to these ideas ? defense-only, profit-less, transparency ?
In 3rd world countries leaders exploit their people. In developed countries leaders exploit 3rd world countries because it's not possible to exploit your own people... Too many damn rules and ways of controlling people. War in that sense is corruption. And corruption should be stopped. It's a completely unfair way of enriching yourself and your friends. Bush and Cheney being great examples. But it happens in many other cases as well. Industries that depend on war push for war. Countries like Saudi Arabia that benefit from war push for war and so on.
We've banned this account for posting primarily political comments, which is not what this site is for. We're happy to unban accounts if you email [email protected] and we believe you'll not post this way in the future.
[+] [-] vachi|9 years ago|reply
Reading the comments below, I come to understand that many are missing the point of the essay, or speech as it was intended originally.
For modern readers, Butler's words are not to be taken directly but in context. Butler's point is that war is a racket. That is it. Funny right. If you are to ignore all the details about the casualties and who said what and who did what, you are still left with the essence of the speech. War is a racket. Repeat after me :) If you instill the mindset that war is a racket then all the pieces fall into place. It becomes very clear that war has no regard for human life. That it is detached from reality of life and death.
"Eliot A. Cohen, an official in the George W. Bush administration who is now a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, said that Mr. Obama’s trips to Walter Reed may have been the reason, and that future presidents should avoid such visits.
“A president has to be psychologically prepared to send people into harm’s way and to get a good night’s sleep,” Mr. Cohen said. “And anything they do that might cripple them that way means they’re not doing their job.”" -- http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama-walter-r...
"they’re not doing their job" --- their job being what?
Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up. Additionally, presidents should visit hospitals in Syria maybe. Maybe then they will not make the same actions.
[+] [-] twblalock|9 years ago|reply
At some point, a US president may need to send soldiers into a situation in which they will very likely die, in order to win a war. It has happened before, and it may happen again. If the president allows visits to wounded veterans to weaken his resolve, the consequences could be very bad. That's what Eliot Cohen is alluding to. He is not suggesting that the president should not care -- he is suggesting that the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens.
> Be smart, war is a racket, and suggesting a president should not be worried about the lives of the people he harms is fucked up.
Nobody suggested that the president should not worry about the lives of soldiers. Your interpretation is unreasonably uncharitable and is in fact a straw man.
[+] [-] fsloth|9 years ago|reply
That a president should be a callous bastard and just do what's good for the military industrial complex sounds pretty insane.
[+] [-] LeifCarrotson|9 years ago|reply
> 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.
If the president needs to win a war to defend our homes or for the Bill of Rights, then (according to this reasoning) they should not go to Walter Reed. War is usually a racket, yes, but it's hard to know exactly when the cure is worse than the disease. Probably is right now, sure, but the Revolutionary War? Civil War? Fought for economic reasons, yes, but also for some correct reasons.
[+] [-] natermer|9 years ago|reply
Their job is to carry out their orders like good little figure-heads of state that they are.
[+] [-] doug1001|9 years ago|reply
i say this for several reasons. One, Smedley D Butler is one of perhaps just three former US Marines universally regarded as demi-gods (the other two are Sgt. Dan Daly and Gen. Chesty Puller). Their official photographs are everywhere, and statement alleged to have been made by them are quoted like scripture among active duty marines. Gen Butler aside from attaining the rank of major general, was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor--twice. (Sgt. Daly, my personal hero, had two as well and a Navy Cross, the second-highest award in the USMC, equivalent to the Army's DSC; Chesty had no MoH, just five Navy Crosses, which is still pretty good).
So here he is at the end of his superb 33-year career, writing a book in which he declares that war is a Racket. And by "Racket" he is clearly using the term in the precise sense: "[a] service that is fraudulently offered to solve a problem, such as for a problem that does not actually exist, that will not be put into effect, or that would not otherwise exist if the racket did not exist."--in other words, what organized crime does.
> "Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints."
from the OP (a except from the Book, which in turn was based on a speech given by Butler two years prior): "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."
Needless to say, i never heard about this book while serving in the USMC as a Sergeant.
second, this book was published in 1935--Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II.
[+] [-] fsloth|9 years ago|reply
I thought this was well understood as well as documented? For example, Chomsky has been speaking about this for decades and his message seems to be fact based.
At least as a non-US citizen, the only war I'm happy about US participated was WW2[0]. This is not to say anything about the mere military pressure US has applied but only of active campaigns. Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.
As a professional soldier, if you can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall street (or domino theorists in Washington) I will gladly do research on them.
[0] (for not allowing Soviet Union to dominate Europe - although, a great portion of their war effort was fought with US supplies so maybe third reich and Soviet Union would have just beaten each other to death).
[+] [-] DanielBMarkham|9 years ago|reply
Gen Butler's indictment pre-dates not just the Vietnam War but WW II
Yeah, it goes as far back as you like. This is a great thesis, but people are viewing it as presenting a dichotomy by focusing on one side of the equation.
War is a racket. It's also necessary at times. Both things are true. The reason why we don't keep standing armies around and create huge military-industrial complexes around war is that the racket side of things tends to take over.
[+] [-] Natsu|9 years ago|reply
https://wikileaks.org/yemen-files/
[+] [-] CrossWired|9 years ago|reply
Nor did I, but why we be told about a book that questions the purpose of everything we were being asked to do?
Also, Semper Fi devil!
[+] [-] dexwiz|9 years ago|reply
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
This speech is cited as the first use of the term "military-industrial complex".
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html
[+] [-] pmoriarty|9 years ago|reply
It's interesting that Eisenhower and Butler blew the whistle essentially after their careers were over rather than in the middle of their careers. I guess one generally does not attain great heights in one's respective career by being the sort that doesn't want to play the game. It still speaks volumes that those who are masters of their games would turn whistleblowers at all, though -- even if at a rather late stage.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...
[+] [-] emmelaich|9 years ago|reply
Something that hasn't been given as much attention.
[+] [-] wz1000|9 years ago|reply
American foreign policy can hardly become more profit-centered and evil than it has been post WWII, but I predict we will see a resurgence of voices critical towards it in the coming years because Trump places no effort in hiding behind pretty words and a wall of PR. The ugliness of American actions will now be apparent for all to see.
[+] [-] micaksica|9 years ago|reply
Critical voices from where? Outside the United States?
[+] [-] haydenlee|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delbel|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pmoriarty|9 years ago|reply
I'm not sure how it was in Butler's time, but I've read that the overwhelming majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. It would seem to me that they are the ones who pay "the biggest part of the bill".
Not that I would deny that the people doing the mass murder can themselves become the victims of war. But I'd personally have more sympathy for civilians who are not trying to murder others but are themselves murdered.
[+] [-] StanislavPetrov|9 years ago|reply
It's very unfortunate that this 80 year old polemic by Butler is still radical in this day and age, when so many are chomping at the bit to wage war.
[+] [-] Teever|9 years ago|reply
But more importantly back then American soldiers were conscripted and forced to fight against their will.
[+] [-] firethief|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorde...
[+] [-] fsloth|9 years ago|reply
Focusing on this aspect is kinda lame since the main point of Butler's message was that someone suffers, and someone else profits, and that military action is generally taken for monetary profit, and not for any higher purpose.
[+] [-] ajdlinux|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dhaivatpandya|9 years ago|reply
This may be true, but a soldier probably has a far higher likelihood of dying in a war than a civilian, thereby "paying the bill." This means that in expectation, each individual soldier pays a higher value of the bill in comparison to each individual citizen.
[+] [-] doug1001|9 years ago|reply
His use of the term "bill" refers to the cost of US participation in war; All of the wars he's talking about took place outside the US, so de minimis US citizen casualties
still i would agree, and i bet Gen Butler would as well that civilians suffer the "biggest part of the" damage, but Butler's statement that you quoted was more specific.
[+] [-] Animats|9 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot
[+] [-] IslaDeEncanta|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gedy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmaunder|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1024core|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smcl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] finid|9 years ago|reply
I believe the company moved to Dubai or some other city.
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] scandox|9 years ago|reply
The problem is that you can justify almost any conflict as ultimately meeting these criteria. If you let someone else become too powerful isn't that a de facto threat to your home? If you don't defend rights abroad, don't you threaten the extinction of rights at home?
That's why we do rely on the morality of our leaders. Which seems to be ropey at best.
[+] [-] dmichulke|9 years ago|reply
> defend rights abroad
is that of course the "abroad" state is then entitled to defend its perceived rights in your state.
So only "defend rights at home" is actually a stable principle.
[+] [-] tdkl|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sspiff|9 years ago|reply
Smedley Butler is a brilliant orator. He manages to distill social and political outrage/abuse into a language that the everyman can connect with, and without sounding like a populist communist sympathizer. He achieved the latter by often stressing the importance of individual as well as community action. He used the term "Americanism" do describe this socially engaged entrepreneur attitude.
[+] [-] tracker1|9 years ago|reply
It's a shame.
[+] [-] e40|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] christophilus|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] disposablezero|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fsloth|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostboys67|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] calibas|9 years ago|reply
"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."
[+] [-] agumonkey|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devoply|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] angersock|9 years ago|reply
It should be required reading in schools.
[+] [-] farright|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|9 years ago|reply