I started paying attention to this when I lived close to DC around 2002. Bush was cutting the top tax brackets while ramping up for the Iraq invasion, the defense contractors made record profits (I remember one CEO making around 30 million) and the DC metro was plastered with ads touting the patriotism of the defense contractors. I thought "these guys are making record money, are getting their taxes reduced, try to look like patriots and some clueless young guys have to go to war and die". Since then I honestly think there should be no profit in making weapons while a war is going. It's just not right that some people are raking in the big money without risk while some poor guys have to go and die.
Past related threads:<p><i>War Is a Racket (1933)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22012255</a> - Jan 2020 (181 comments)<p><i>War Is a Racket (1935)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19772136</a> - April 2019 (1 comment)<p><i>War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13068641</a> - Nov 2016 (152 comments)<p><i>War Is a Racket (1935)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11236553</a> - March 2016 (167 comments)<p><i>War Is A Racket, Major General Smedley Butler (1935)</i> - <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1897856</a> - Nov 2010 (3 comments)
Beforehand [0] the author of this text, Butler, the most respected general in the US at that time was offered to lead a coup d'etat to overthrow FDR and then to become effectively a dictator.<p>[0]<a href="https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/" rel="nofollow">https://bigthink.com/the-present/fdr-coup/</a>
The tragedy is that poor unfortunate grunts only get to know it's a racket after it's too late - when half of them are already dead.<p>Unfortunately, it seems to be a chararistic of the human condition that learning about war is a slow prossess and that the horrors of experiencing it cannot passed down from one generation to the next.<p>Experience gathered over millennia has demonstrated that it's essentially impossible to teach recruits before they enter the military that war is not only a racket but also it will be the most horrible and devastating experience of their lives.<p>The fact is, it's impossible to put an old head onto young shoulders.
I read this book (or a good chunk of it) awhile ago and something was off about it. I didn't believe he knew what he was talking about. I dont recall any counter examples in his book, or him claiming he had direct experience with businesses matters. Perhaps he conflated correlation and causation. Some businesses are going to profit from war because demand for certain items will spike. But to claim WW I was pushed by business interests is a huge leap (with no other evidence than "hey look, people are profiting from this!!!")
Do check out the author, major general Smedley Butler USMC<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler</a>
A POTUS and military man (Eisenhower) called this out years ago. Aka, The Military Industrial Complex. No Virginia, it's not a conspiracy theory.<p><a href="https://m.youtube.com" rel="nofollow">https://m.youtube.com</a>
/watch?v=OyBNmecVtdU<p>Said POTUS Obama in his 2016 State of the Union:<p>"The United States of America is the most powerful nation on Earth. Period. It's not even close. We spend more on our military than the next eight nations combined."<p>1) 7 of those 8 are allies
2) It might be the next 15 or 20 now, as the DoD budget has increased since.<p>"Our troops are the finest fighting force in the history of the world. No nation dares to attack us or our allies because they know that's the path to ruin."
3) Worked out well. 20+ years in Afghanistan. The lives. The money. And that's The Best?
Succinct and timely as we watch the US media and political class breathlessly try to rally us all to go to war with Russia. Even the Ukrainians aren't as eager and worked-up; NATO, in fact, has not stood up any forces so far. It's insane.
A much better paper, imo:<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/search?q=charles+tilly+war+making</a><p>Personally, I like the opinion I read once that it is an inevitable consequence of the existence of power itself, and as a result, the existence of those who seek it and compete for it. The best you can do is stay out of its way.<p>(Credit goes to a Vietnamese tribal leader named Bear, whose tribe made it through the big war there despite all that happeend.)
If interested, for more data including names and dates, try Carroll Quigley's Anglo-American Establishment or his Tragedy and Hope. For a shorter version, try Joe Plummer's Tragedy and Hope 101.<p>If true, not all is as it appears. But then, in the day and age of propaganda, when is it?
I believe this racket has only been growing and growing every decade since. It needs to be brought up more often, and people and organisations with large audiences must dare to speak openly about it.
How do trust the govt to have our best interest in mind in regards to pandemic response but not in regards to war?<p>It's the same driving force: medical and journalist corporations making record profits.
War is a racket. But to imply that the little guy does not profit is disingenuous. 330 million Americans profit from the fact the US dollar is a reserve currency. Countries and people park their money in dollars, and as the world economy grows, there's a need for more dollars, and the US Government obliges by running mind blowing deficits. In the old times, vassals would pay tribute, today, they simply buy US Treasuries. Tribute (or if you prefer, protection money) is the very definition of racket.<p>Putin and Xi don't like to pay protection money. In fact, they'd rather be racketeers themselves [1].<p>[1] <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-russia-announced-joint-pledge-push-back-against-dollar-hegemony/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/04/09/china-rus...</a>
Jocko Podcast with the author is a great listen. <a href="https://jockopodcast.com/2021/09/22/300-war-is-a-racket/" rel="nofollow">https://jockopodcast.com/2021/09/22/300-war-is-a-racket/</a>
This book is a great example of how wrong it is to think that the concept of the state is evil and oppressing. When in reality the state acts in favor of those in power, and i don't mean politicians or the president. It's the capitalists. The ones who control production control society.<p>We don't have wars because of ideas or justice, we have war because of the hard economic incentives of the powerful. The states mass surveillance isn't based on a corrupt evil, they do it to secure the interests of the powerful.
We don't pay taxes solely because 'the states' or politicians want to take from us, they do it to pay subsidies and bailouts to industries.<p>This book is about capitalists, their state and how they use it to secure profit. To have capital is to have influence, so where are you when laws get written?
Please read your military history.<p>Soldiers who have never fought are less capable in battle. It doesn't really matter how much they train or how many drills are run. Nothing really prepares you for the trauma of watching your friend of many years die by getting his head blown off next to you, or worse, bleeding out while crying for his mother. There are two kinds of people who witness that: those who curl up and pray for it all to stop, and those who pick up their weapons and keep fighting. Generals never know which kind of men they have unless battles weed out the first kind, by death or discharge. And militaries with too many of the first kind lose wars.<p>Yes, it's horrible. It's gut-wrenching just to think about it. We'd all be better off if we could resolve our conflicts without war. But in the world we live in, there are too many military and paramilitary actors who are not guided by such Enlightened ideals. What will we do if we are not prepared and they come knocking on our door?<p>Maybe you don't believe that the same irrational forces that first manifest as teenage graffiti, then grow into organized crime, could ever result in organizations the size of militaries. Maybe you don't believe that, in societies which have abolished all adventure, the only adventure left is to abolish that society. That's fine. I respect that. But what if you're wrong? Shouldn't society hedge that bet, considering the cost? Can no such hedge possibly justify its cost?<p>There's a reasonable discussion to be had about where the line (i.e. cost) should be drawn, and what shape the line should take. But the opinion that it is worth it to pay <i>some</i> cost should be relatively uncontroversial. And if you understand that society should pay some cost to maintain an effective military, you ultimately understand that, until the diplomats can succeed at building a genuine global peace, war is inevitable.
Had this been believed by decision makers in the US, we would probably be under Nazi regime right now, or at least most of Europe would be. Of course many aspects of war are profitable and it should be avoided at all cost. But to think that all war is nothing but a money maker for a small group is incorrect. American Isolationism, at least many decades ago, was bad for the rest of the world.
This talk from 1933 aged poorly. America's initial lack of intervention in WW2 resulted in Pearl Harbor and German conquest of most of Europe. Smedley Butler can stay forgotten as a footnote in the dusty annals of history.