The role of deception in Empire by James Goodfellow
(libertarian)
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Bob Dylan wrote a powerful anti war song in the early 1960s called "Masters of War". In it, he lambasted the economic machine that drives war. His rage is palpable; it is truly a giant of a song:
…
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
…"
"…
You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy
You put a gun in my hand
And you hide from my eyes
And you turn and run farther
When the fast bullets fly
…"
I find it hard to disagree with him, but I can't help but feel there is more to the picture.
In the 1930s, Marine Corp General Smedley Butler wrote "War Is A Racket", wherein he blamed business interests for war:
"… 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. …"
I find it difficult to disagree with him too. And again, I can't help but feel there is more to the picture.
Which brings me to my topic. There will aways be pressure from weapons manufacturers. Weapons are necessary for legitimate defense. The problem is industry growth, which historically has spilled over into offense. Adding to that pressure are side industries; ones that indirectly benefit from war: construction, materials and banking, to finance and rebuild infrastructure and buildings which war destroys.
I can suggest no solution save vigilance and knowledge that can counter this perpetual pressure; apathy and ignorance are what the "few" have historically banked on. General Butler wrote his piece in an age of conscription. His solution to war was to conscript the war industry 30 days before a war could begin, and pay the civilian conscripts what the military ones got - a pitance. His solution tried to take the profit out of war. Thankfully, conscription (aka the draft) is no longer with us.
There is however, more that is required to fight a war. Weapons do not generally shoot themselves; that requires soldiers - the few who profit do not generally participate in the carnage. And since few soldiers will volunteer to wage war for another man's profits, a ruse is required.
As with the weapon industry, soldiers are necessary for legitimate defense. In that capacity, they serve a vital and noble role. Truly, the defense of ones country is to be lauded, the soldier admired and honored. But what happens when the pressure I mentioned earlier spills over into offense? If that pressure is seen as wrong by the "very many", is not too the force that will wield their weapons also wrong?
Once a soldier is in the military, his consent to conflict is taken as a given; indeed, it is expressly stated in his enlistment. The reasons for conflict are irrelevant to the expectation of his active participation. The time to question whether any war is justified is clearly before enlisting. Since few of us can read the future :), we have only the past to instruct us with respect to this issue. Have soldiers been duped before "for the benefit of the very few"? If so, how often? And, if they have, what is the proper response to future requests for participation?
I offer the following as evidence of deceit aimed at getting young men and women to sacrifice themselves in the name of patriotism:
World War 1: The ruse : The Lusitania, which carried munitions for England despite being a luxury passenger ship. German U-boats torpedoed her, killing roughly 60% of her passengers. Americans were outraged that Germany would attack a passenger ship and resistance to the war disappeared.
World War 2: The ruse : Pearl Harbor, which the Japanese attacked after orchestrated goading by the Roosevelt administration. The New York Times reported on Dec 8 that the US knew of the attack a week earlier. The implications are that our government sacrificed almost 2500 Americans to reverse widespread resistance to another World War.
Korea: The ruse: Using the "Red Scare" and McCarthyism in general as an excuse, the US countered Communist Russia's advance into the Korean peninsula with force. Why that tiny country, on the other side of the world, was vital to the defense of the USA has never been explained.
Vietnam: The ruse: Lyndon Johnson sharply escalated the American presence in Vietnam after the alleged attack by North Vietnamese forces on American destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. It was later revealed, after the war, that the attack never occurred.
Desert Storm: The ruse: A key event in generating momentum for the first U.S. War on Iraq, "Operation Desert Storm" was a fraudulent report of the murder of Kuwaiti babies by Iraqi soldiers. The massacre never occurred. Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the Bush administration to attack Kuwait in retaliation for diagonal drilling into their oil fields.
Iraq 2: The ruse: Weapons of mass destruction. The Bush administration squelched top secret CIA intelligence and insisted that Saddam Hussein had WMD. This gave the USA justification to root out terrorism in Iraq in the aftermath of 9-11. The fact that Saddam was moving Iraq away from a dollar basis and towards the Euro, threatening dollar hegemony and the profits of the Federal Reserve was conveniently swept under the rug.
From this evidence, I have quite a bit of doubt that the above mentioned conflicts were in defense of the USA. It seems more likely that they were in defense of the profits of the "few". The defense of our country should not require deception.
The US Empire has roughly 700 military bases on foreign soil. That's a lot of soldiers; far more than are necessary to defend our soil. My arguments suggest many of our soldiers are defending corporate profits, and I would see an end to it to give peace a chance.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" -- George Satayana
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Goodfellow only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Goodfellow is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Bill Gee
Date: March 10, 2011 08:31:47 AM
Excellent points.
When you described how not only weapons manufacturers benefit from war, but also all of the logistics and construction industries that profit from the rebuilding, I was reminded of how "Moral Hazard" plays a role in the economy - not just in war but in everyday life.
The argument goes basically like this:
The economy does not benefit very much if you ride your bicycle to the local farmer's market to buy locally grown fruit and vegetables. After all, you're not consuming any gas, you are getting exercise, and you are eating healthy food that didn't have to travel thousands of miles to get there.
However, if you drive your car to the local mega-mart and buy truffles, the economy likes that a lot better. You're paying for gas, insurance for your car, increasing wear & tear, and buying a good that needed to travel thousands of miles to get there.
If you crash your car on the way to the mega-mart, the economy likes it even better. Now you need to buy a new car, pay for the damages of whatever you hit, increase your insurance premiums, and if anyone got hurt - bonus!
If you crash your car into the mega-mart... well, you get the picture.
Bottom line: The current economy rewards mayhem and destruction to the benefit of the corporate elite at the cost of peace and economic security for everyone else.
