War Is a Racket — Hamilton Mobley

Jan 2

Jan 2 War Is a Racket

Iranian Quds commander Qasem Soleimani[1] was assisinated in Iraq today by the USA.[2] He is a veteran of the Iran-Iraq War (the USA armed both sides per the Iran-Contra Scandal[3]), a friend of Hezbollah, and an enemy of ISIS.

The 1979 Iranian Revolution overthrew the American puppet, the Shah of Iran,[4] who was initially put into power by a CIA/British coup in 1953.[5]

The USA are in the Middle East to protect the petro-dollar from competition. Today if nations want to buy oil, they need American money- the world’s reserve currency.[6] If the dollar is no longer used for trade, particularly for oil, the USA can’t finance their wars and welfare programs.

I hope this is not this generation’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand.[7]

In War Is A Racket (1935), Major General Smedley Butler, USMC, two time recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor, opens with,

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
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.”[8]

The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe during WWII and later Commander-in-Chief of the USA, President Dwight D. Eisenhower said in his 1961 farewell address,

“Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.
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. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”[9]

The Military-Industrial Complex goes to war for the Petro-dollar. Few are enriched. Many are impoverished and killed in wars. Eisenhower and Butler knew better than most that war is a racket.

“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.” -Herman Goering, NAZI Luftwaffe commander, Nuremberg trials, 1946

Fearing that kings and dictators would go to war, the Constitution gave the power to declare war to the Congress, since the USA are a Republic and not an empire, in Article I Section 8.

Even before the Constitution was ratified, future Sec of the Treasury and Revolutionary War officer under General Washington, Alexander Hamilton, wrote to defend the adoption of the Constitution against those who said it would give the new confederacy too much power. He said,

“First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor.
Secondly. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.1 The governor of New York, on the other hand, is by the constitution of the State vested only with the command of its militia and navy. But the constitutions of several of the States expressly declare their governors to be commanders-in-chief, as well of the army as navy; and it may well be a question, whether those of New Hampshire and Massachusetts, in particular, do not, in this instance, confer larger powers upon their respective governors, than could be claimed by a President of the United States.”[10]

The commander of the Continental Army during the American Revolution and first President of the Constitutional USA, George Washington said in his farewell address,

“Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.
The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
[…]Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”[11]

Agreeing with Washington’s Sentiment, John Quincy Adams, both President and Supreme Court Justice of the USA and President John Adams’s son wrote,

“Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.
She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: but she would be no longer the ruler of her own soul…”[12]

Thomas Jefferson, delegate to the Continental Congress, author of the Declaration of Independence, governor of Virginia, 1st US Secretary of State, Vice President and President of the USA, and creator and 1st Rector of the University of Virginia, said in his first inaugural address as president,