
War Is a Racket by General Smedley D. Butler (1933) - betolink
http://www.wanttoknow.info/warisaracket.shtml
======
vachi
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...](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/us/politics/obama-walter-reed-
military.html)

"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
> "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.

~~~
qznc
> the president needs to do what is necessary to win a war if one happens

Not all wars can or should be won. For example, the war on drugs cannot be
won, just like the war on alcohol was a mistake.

Sometimes, the greatest things a leader / president can do, is to acknowledge
that he was (we were) wrong. However, pride prevents that. Once you decided to
enter a war, you are entirely focused on winning it.

~~~
ptaipale
The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight. It's a figure of speech.

The war on terror is so-so.

~~~
qznc
> The war on drugs is not a war that soldiers fight

Debatable. The police men / DEA involved probably feel like soldiers
sometimes. The drug lords and governments in south america certainly have
soldiers involved.

~~~
eponeponepon
They're being trained to think of themselves as soldiers. This will inevitably
lead to them _being_ soldiers, and that eventually ends in bog-standard
straightforward war, indistinguishable from any waged by "real" soldiers.

~~~
tracker1
Most soldiers throughout history were not career soldiers or warriors. Most
are people brought into the conflict without any intent to be a soldier before
whatever brought them in.

------
doug1001
this is extraordinary

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
"this is extraordinary"

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).

~~~
bzbarsky
> can refer to any other war effort that benefitted anyone else than the wall
> street (or domino theorists in Washington)

Let's see...

1) The First and Second Barbary Wars probably qualify, seeing as they predate
both. But more to the point, I suspect they benefited lots of people outside
of the US in general.

2) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Anti-
Piracy_Operati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegean_Sea_Anti-
Piracy_Operations_of_the_United_States) \-- or does that not count as a war?

3) I assume you're not going to count the US Civil War?

4) Pretty sure the US involvement in
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Rus...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention_in_the_Russian_Civil_War)
didn't benefit Wall Street, though it's not clear it really benefited anyone
else, other than the Czechoslovak Legion, of course. Or would this count as a
"UN sanctioned peace action" albeit in pre-UN days, given the number of
countries involved?

5)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1958_Lebanon_crisis)
\-- at first glance the US intervention prevented things degenerating into a
more serious civil war. Or is this something that you think only benefited
domino theorists?

6) I don't know enough about
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thaila...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_insurgency_in_Thailand)
to tell whether it would count here, but I do think it benefited at least the
Thai government.

7)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaba_II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaba_II)

8)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Lebanon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_Force_in_Lebanon)
is a weird one, in that it's not clear that it really _benefited_ anyone in
the end, but it was certainly not aiming to benefit domino theorists or Wall
Street and as far as I can tell wasn't really UN-sanctioned, but was a
peacekeeping mission.

9)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada)
\-- or are you going to call this something to benefit domino theorists? The
outcome (democratic elections, the day of the invasion being considered a
national holiday in Grenada now) suggests that maybe the Grenadans benefited.
Note that this one was _condemned_ by the UN.

10) Intervention in Kosovo in 1998/9\. This was not UN-sanctioned. Pretty sure
neither Wall Street nor domino theorists (what dominos?) benefited.

> Also, I'm not accounting UN sanctioned peace actions.

So just to be clear, specifically not counting the Korean War, the 1990-91
Gulf War, intervention in the Somali Civil War, intervention in Haiti in the
mid-90s, Bosnia around the same time, Libya in 2011, right? Anything I missed?

~~~
fsloth
Thanks! That's a great list of refences to go through. I actually wanted to
have objective references and not just bash the US command. I should have
placed more emphasis on the stabilizing US actions and not just sheath them
under the "UN mandate" phrase. A few comments:

1) & 2) The anti-piracy operations were a nice example of a stabilizing
strategy.

3) Civil wars are generally considered internal matters

4) Businesses operating within the allied sphere had vested commercial
interests in Russia, see for example
[http://www.branobelhistory.com/themes/the-branobel-
company/T...](http://www.branobelhistory.com/themes/the-branobel-company/The-
oil-companies-merge/) \- which the Bolshevik faction threatened

5) & 8) - Yeah, post Ottoman Middle East is a major fuck up. No idea who
benefitted whom there.

6) I have no familiarity with the matter but supporting anti-communist forces
within a country would fall under the "dominoes..." template if I had to be
brash about forming a quick opinion

7) That's tiny. Yeah, probably under "stabilizing action" just like 1,2. But,
no idea really.

9) That's US security more than anything, they were afraid Cuba and Soviet
Union would hold Grenada as a forward base - I have to call "dominoes" on that

Of the uncounted:

Korean war - while I'm sure South Korean prefer the current situation, having
an economy boosted by vested US interests - from the point of view of US was
about holding Soviet Union at bay. Dominoes.

Gulf war. Oil. Oil. Oil oil oil. Street.

Somali civil war was an attempt at a stabilizing action.

Haiti - [http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/haiti-us-
occupation-...](http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/haiti-us-occupation-
hundred-year-anniversary) \- given the history of US involvement in Haiti I'm
sure the 90's intervention was among the most benevolent of them

Bosnia- it's the stabilizing action for which I have to commend the US the
most (and am stupefied to this day of the European incompetence in military
matters).

Libya - yeah, that did not go so well for anyone.

~~~
bzbarsky
What's interesting to me, and shouldn't be surprising, is that there are
domino-theory wars like Korea that at least the South Koreans feel benefited
them, and then there are domino-theory wars that didn't really benefit people
much. And there are UN-sanctioned things that turned out well, and then there
are things like Libya. And the hard part is telling up front which situation
you're in...

Note that I left off a _long_ list of US military involvement that could not
possibly be considered to benefit anything other than maybe US expansion or US
business interests. I just listed the ones that might have fit your criteria.

------
dexwiz
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".

[http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html](http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html)

~~~
pmoriarty
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.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessions_of_an_Economic_Hit_Man)

~~~
nerfhammer
Widely regarded by experts as best placed in the fiction section

~~~
SturgeonsLaw
Then I'd suggest The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein. That book is reference
city.

~~~
edblarney
Naomi Klein's first book - 'No Logo' was quite good.

The 'Shock Doctrine' was kind of a mess.

What happens is that these authors become very famous by putting out a good
book with an opinion.

Then, like a one-hit-wonder rock band, they are urged to publish more red-meat
for their readers, who want to hear about how the world works in a certain
way.

Though the 'Shock Doctrine' is not a work of almost fiction as is 'Economic
Hitman' \- the premise of the accusations are really, really shaky, in many
cases absurd.

She's very unrealistic about most things, and recently indicated that the
Canadian Postal Workers should double as nurses and visit people door-to-door
(because hey, they already do that). Which is neat for a brainstormed idea but
fails in so many ridiculous and obvious ways it's laughably absurd.

Since that book (Shock Doctrine), which by the way makes some reasonable
points, but mostly not - she's become a 'book agitator', she can't be taken
credibly.

I can understand how people could read the 'Shock Doctrine' and be upset, but
it's the absent contextual information that is missing that ultimately makes
these books in some ways 'misinformational'. There are a lot of facts - but
they are highly, highly selective. Add to this - some of the actual bad things
the USA has done in the past - and you get the allowance for someone to spin
great conspiracy theories.

Klein lives in my neighbourhood BTW. I see her around :)

~~~
Synaesthesia
Shock doctrine had some great points like about the economic collapse of
Russia and South Africa in the early 90's under neoliberalism.

~~~
edblarney
I can think of a couple of issues which might underlie the economic issues of
South Africa and Russia: namely thee end of one party rule in both states.

There really was no 'collapse' of the South African economy - it's been
growing rapidly since the end of apartheid. Just some chaos during the
transition. Crime expanded quite a lot and it had nothing to do with
'neoliberalism'.

And both nations would have had to go a heavy and chaotic transitionary
period.

To imply that it was part of some cabal of Western Imperialist 'Doctrine' is
completely false.

There were a lot of resources up for grabs - and a lot of money ploughing in.

Naomi Klein is part of the reason I dropped supporting SJW/leftist causes by
default, I'm pretty skeptical these days, I pick and chose.

~~~
Synaesthesia
There was a dramatic downturn in the South African economy after 1994, not a
collapse like Russia but our industry took a huge knock, the Rand weaken
dramatically, there was vast disinvestment and job losses. Yes there was
growth, but like all neoliberal regimes it has gone to the wealthiest 1%.
Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it
was in 1994.

~~~
edblarney
"Today South Africa is significantly worse in most social indicators than it
was in 1994."

And do you blame this on capitalists? Or do you blame this on your utterly,
completely and totally corrupt and inefficient political system?

Which one do you think is the source of the problem? :)

Because we have capitalism here in Canada and are doing just fine.

------
wz1000
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.

~~~
micaksica
> 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?

~~~
sooheon
Anywhere critical thought exists, I would hope? Why draw geographic borders on
what is hopefully a universal phenomenon, the ability to be critical?

------
pmoriarty
_" 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.

~~~
firethief
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.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorde...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#cite_ref-
VAscreen_26-4)

~~~
wz1000
This phenomenon was summed up succinctly by Frankie Boyle

> Not only will America go to your country and kill all your people, but
> what's worse I think, is that they'll come back 20 years later and make a
> movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad.

> America making a movie about what Vietnam did to their soldiers is like a
> serial killer telling you what stopping suddenly for hitchhikers did to his
> clutch.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZwuTI-V8SI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZwuTI-V8SI)

It's not that PTSD doesn't exist or affect many people, but the scale of the
tragedies involved.

~~~
TeMPOraL
The US found a solution to this problem and has been testing it for quite some
time in Pakistan -- drones don't get PTSD.

~~~
destructionator
Drone operators do though, in large numbers.

------
Animats
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]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot)

~~~
gedy
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](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivMiVQjGeyg)

~~~
pmoriarty
There's also _" It Can't Happen Here"_ by Sinclair Lewis, from 1935. It
envisions a totalitarian dictatorship taking over the US.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)

------
mmaunder
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.

------
1024core
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.

~~~
smcl
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.

~~~
dingaling
Halliburton moved their corporate HQ and CEO to Dubai in 2007.

They remain incorporated via the Texas office to bid on US tenders

------
scandox
> 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.

~~~
tdkl
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).

~~~
scandox
I am not advocating, only describing. I think his argument is a problem
because it can easily be undermined by specious arguments such as I have
outlined. Hence the need to believe in the moral judgement of leaders not to
be drawn in by such.

------
sspiff
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.

------
tracker1
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.

It's a shame.

------
e40
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.

------
christophilus
"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.

~~~
edblarney
"Conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be
conscripted"

Are you kidding? It's called taxation!

People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and a lot of
it goes towards the military. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just that it
is.

The General has a right to his opinion, but he cannot seem to grasp action and
consequence.

The world is not some simple place wherein you can have easy answers to such
questions.

Imagine for a moment if America did not control the high seas, the Panama
canal, de-facto the Suez, the Gulf, and patrol the South China sea - and make
them open and free for _everyone_ to navigate - even competitors like China,
Iran and Russia?

All of those areas - including the routes around S. America and Africa would
be controlled by totalitarian/thuggish entities or irregular forces and it'd
be too expensive or unsafe to travel.

As just one example.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" People are taxed massively more now than at any time in history and"_

This is not even remotely true. The US used to have an income tax that was
over 90%. Something like 94%, if memory serves.

~~~
edblarney
It's quite true.

Though income tax rates after the war were quite high - it was for a very
small group, and actual receipts were not as high.

'The 1%' do not generate a lot of income, they generate capital gains, which
is why a 90% 'income tax' rate wouldn't have the effect you might think.

Moreover, in a climate wherein there actually is a 90% income tax rate, every
wealthy person that can afford an accountant (i.e. all of them) would find
ways around this. They'll simply take almost no income, and use other vehicles
instead, i.e. sale of shares, royalties etc..

~~~
pmoriarty
By that reasoning, why tax the rich at all? They'll always find a way around
it.

In fact, the rich are not all powerful and don't get carte blanche when it
comes to hiding their money.

Do you remember all of those secret Swiss bank accounts which were widely used
to hide money? Well, in recent decades, the US has managed to force the
legendarily secret Swiss banking system to become much more transparent,
precisely in order to go after tax evaders. Tax evasion has also become a
really serious issue in Europe. Governments are in fact going after the rich
to get their due.

That doesn't mean there aren't loopholes, or that the rich can't manage to
hide some of their money (at least temporarily, while the law catches up with
them). But that doesn't mean they can hide it all or that there'll be no
consequences for at least some of them. It certainly does not mean that we
shouldn't try to tax them more.

~~~
edblarney
I'm not reasoning anything.

I'm just saying that during the era of 90% 'income tax' for high earners, they
would simply declare their income as capital gains. It's just what they did.
And what people do.

~~~
pmoriarty
There's no reason why capital gains couldn't be taxed at the same rates as
income.

~~~
edblarney
"There's no reason why capital gains couldn't be taxed at the same rates as
income."

Sure there is -> risk.

It's why everywhere in the world cap gains are taxed lower than income.

Cap gains + income tax at 90% and economy would collapse instantly as risk
premium goes up, most equities and probably most bonds would drop quite a lot
and people moved into real-estate, cash, commodities, gold. etc..

But maybe there could be some improvement.

------
disposablezero
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.

------
fsloth
There is a graphic novel about this topic called "Addicted to war" which was
pretty good:
[http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html](http://www.addictedtowar.com/book.html)

------
lostboys67
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

~~~
calibas
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."

~~~
lostboys67
If you read histories quoting original sources its also used in literature at
the time Pg Woodhouse.

------
agumonkey
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 ?

------
devoply
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.

------
angersock
This is one of the best essays on war I've ever read, and I'm glad to see it
posted here.

It should be required reading in schools.

------
samdung
I'm sure USA armies have killed more people than Hitler's armies.

~~~
dba7dba
You obviously have no idea how bloody the fighting between Germany and Russia
was.

While US made critical contribution in WW2, it was Russian blood that sucked
German army white.

~~~
flavor8
> ... it was Russian blood that sucked German army white.

Interestingly, the Russian invasion of Manchuria (i.e. their entry into the
Pacific theater) also played a much more significant role in Japan's surrender
than most of us were taught in history class. The US had been firebombing
Japanese cities for months, so the atom bombs, while devastating, were not an
order of magnitude escalation, whereas the Russian invasion certainly was.

------
golergka
Curious how he described protection of overseas investments and business
interests as a "racket", but at the same time enjoyed living in one of the
most advanced economics of the world, fuelled by strong business and trade.

~~~
insulanus
This is a lame criticism, because it implies that anyone who disagrees with
their home country's policies should just move somewjere else, because they
are dirty commie hippies.

He certainly "earned" the rights to his creature comforts, if participation in
war is the measure of his dedivation the U.S.A.

I think it's more curious that rich people from all nations benefit from
advanced economies, without sending their family members, or themselves in
harm's way.

Which is more unfair?

