- My first name is my Irish grandmotherÌs family
name. Over the years, I have run across the writings of a number of Butlers
whose views of life seemed to parallel my own, leading me to wonder if
there might be some genetic connection. Samuel ButlerÌs satirical
political views along with his interest in a collective unconscious; the
poetry of William Butler Yeats; and the Realpolitick of Smedley Butler,
provide a few examples.
-
- Smedley Butler is a name with which you may not be familiar,
even though he twice won the Congressional Medal of Honor. If he were to
appear on television today, he would be identified as "Maj. General
Smedley Butler, USMC (ret.)" But even if he were still alive, he would
not appear on any network television news shows because, late in life,
he openly expressed his opposition to the war system. He went on to expose
the symbiotic relationship existing between the institutional interests
of corporate America and the state. Many former top generals and admirals
have written memoirs around the theme "war is hell," but Gen.
Butler went a step further, writing a book titled <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0922915865/lewrockwell/>War
Is a Racket.
-
- Smedley defined a racket as "something that is not
what it seems to the majority of the people." War, he goes on, "is
possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious"
of rackets. Reflecting upon his own early 20th century career, he noted
that "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big
Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer,
a gangster for capitalism." He related how he had helped make Mexico
safe for American oil interests, Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the
National City Bank, a number of Central American countries more pleasant
for Wall Street interests, the Dominican Republic more conducive to the
sugar industry, and China more compatible with the interests of Standard
Oil. Then, after observing how he had helped supply the coercive, deadly
force to advance corporate interests throughout various parts of the world,
Butler added: "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." You can see that his book does for adults what
The Emperor's New Clothes does for children.
-
- I have my doubts that we shall be hearing such candor
anytime soon from the Bush administrationÌs appointed military ruler
of Iraq, Lt. Gen. Jay Garner. I have seen far too many retired military
officers on network television news and talk shows faithfully reciting
the EstablishmentÌs position on the necessity for, the success of,
and the bright prospects for the American governmentÌs military
involvement in Iraq (and, perhaps, other Middle Eastern countries as well).
The media - which has been eager to ferret out the economic or ideological
interests of those who oppose administration policies - could demonstrate
a bit of "truth-in-advertising" by identifying the defense industry
interests for whom these various retired generals, admirals, and colonels
now work!
-
- American military academies have apparently expanded
their curricula to include the training of future officers to become military
occupiers of other countries. One West Point cadet expressed an awareness
of the interconnected nature of her military training and the political
domination of a nation. Contemplating her possible assignment to Iraq upon
graduation, she pondered how she "might have to go over there and
basically be mayor of a town." This young woman would be well advised
to read Gen. ButlerÌs book!
-
- Most Americans are uncomfortable contemplating that war
is, and always has been, a system by which a few are able to direct the
coercive machinery of the state to serve their economic interests, always
at the expense of the many. Gen. ButlerÌs words have never been
more apropos than in the current U.S. abomination in Iraq: "Out of
war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They
just take it. This newly acquired territory is promptly exploited by the
few . . . . The general public shoulders the bill," as do the soldiers
and their families whose lives are sacrificed for the benefit of those
who profit from war.
-
-
- For those who doubt this assessment, I invite you to
read Murray RothbardÌs excellent essay, <http://www.mises.org/store/product1.asp?SID=2&Product_ID=149>Wall
Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy. othbard was always fond of
asking the cui bono? question (i.e., "who benefits?), an inquiry that
almost always identifies the hidden interests of governmental policies.
From at least the Civil War onward, economic interests have manipulated
foreign policies, including wars, to serve the interests of major commercial,
industrial, and financial institutions. In so doing, the institutional
interests of the state have also been advanced.
-
- A Civil War that was belatedly sold to a gullible public
on the pretext of "freeing the slaves," was actually designed
to preserve the American nation-state in order to advance Northern economic
interests at the expense of the South. The Spanish-American War, World
Wars I and II, and the Cold War, had in common the purpose of furthering
American corporate interests in other regions of the world. The avenging
of the alleged attack on the battleship "Maine," "making
the world safe for democracy," retaliating for the attack on Pearl
Harbor, or preventing the "international communist conspiracy"
from subduing the rest of the world through the collapse of "dominoes,"
have served only to enlist the gullible Americans in service to corporate-state
interests. The bumper-sticker from the 1960s that read "war is good
business: invest your son" had it right.
-
- The problem that the Bush administration had in selling
the Iraqi invasion to the public was in trying to find a rationale that
would sound convincing to a not-too-discerning boobeoisie. But at each
stage, the factual basis for the campaign failed. The "remember 9/11
and Al Qaeda" refrain collapsed for lack of evidence of any Iraqi
involvement, as did the "weapons of mass destruction" song and
dance. In desperation, the Bush leaguers opted for Iraqi "liberation,"
"freedom," and "democracy" as a justification for a
war they were intent on conducting regardless of the facts or the opposition
of the rest of the world.
-
- Any notions that the fostering of "democracy"
had anything to do with the invasion of Iraq were quickly dispelled by
Donald Rumsfeld who, in responding to efforts of Shiites to exercise political
power in Iraq, declared: "That isnÌt going to happen."
His comment reflects the vacuous meaning of "democracy," a concept
grounded in the popular delusion that the citizenry controls the ruling
class! Rumsfeld is telling us that the American political Establishment
will select the candidates for leadership in Iraq, from which the Iraqis
will be allowed to choose. After all, why should Iraq be any different
from the United States?
-
- Perhaps the last of the satirists, Tom Lehrer, summed
up the essence of American foreign policy machinations in his song "Send
the Marines." Addressing the interests of the ordinary people of Third
World countries being colonized under a new class of nabobs, Lehrer tells
us: "theyÌve got to be protected, all their rights respected,
'til someone we like can get elected." Both Smedley Butler and Donald
Rumsfeld would understand the meaning of these lyrics.
-
- For those willing to pay close attention to events in
Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, there is an opportunity to discover
how war is only the most violent expression of politics. War is politics,
and politics is war. Political systems are grounded in the exercise of
brute force in order to compel the ruled to remain obedient to the demands
of their rulers. In a theocracy, the interests of the ruling class are
centered around religious institutions and doctrines. In our modern corporate-state
arrangement, a synthesis of economic and political interests dominate.
-
- Smedley understood, and expressed, the realities of modern
politics perfectly. He also appreciated the distinction that now differentiates
the libertarian, free-market advocates (e.g., the Austrian school) from
the conservative and liberal defenders of the so-called "mixed economy."
Had he not died in 1940, he would surely have died laughing at the nonsense
perpetrated by Ayn Rand in her essay "AmericaÌs Persecuted
Minority: Big Business."
-
-
- The defense of a truly "free market" has never
been on the agenda of either "big business" or the state. This
is why mercantilism has long been attractive to the interests of both sets
of institutions. There are many - Rothbard being the most visible example
- who understand this quite well. If all of the business-sponsored laws,
regulatory schemes, tariffs and taxation policies, and wars were suddenly
eliminated, we would soon discover the free and creative nature of a stateless
society.
-
- The rest of the world is now being given a lesson in
the realities of corporate-statism. At the uppermost level, one can see
these interests manifesting themselves in the desire to dominate as much
of the worldÌs political and economic decision-making as possible.
This need for power over others is completely incompatible with free markets
and individual liberty.
-
- At a secondary level, one finds the efforts of individual
firms to benefit their interests through state power. Even as the occupation
of Iraq was being put together, handpicked firms with strong ties to the
political establishment were being awarded - apparently without benefit
of any process of bidding - lucrative contracts to "rebuild"
Iraq. The analogy to American "urban renewal" programs immediately
came to mind: municipalities condemning inner-city properties, destroying
buildings and neighborhoods in the process, then turning the lands over
to private developers - at lower-than-market prices - to construct
middle- and upper-income housing. The same practice is going on in Iraq,
with the Air Force bombing Baghdad to rubble, and the American government
awarding contracts to well-connected firms to rebuild the city!
-
- The nature of the Iraqi conquest was not lost on one
cable TV news reporter who, in questioning a man who wanted the rebuilding
process to be opened up to other nations than just the United States shrieked
that the "French who wanted no part in the war now want to share in
the spoils." When one checks a dictionary and discovers that "spoils"
refers to "plunder taken from an enemy in war," and that a synonym
is "loot," even the media unwittingly expresses what is going
on.
-
- A few journalists and soldiers, apparently invoking thousands
of years of human history, have allegedly undertaken more personal forms
of looting. In trying to smuggle paintings, historic artifacts, and vast
sums of confiscated money back into America, the alleged perpetrators bring
to mind a practice going back centuries before the likes of Attila the
Hun and Genghis Khan turned it into an art form.
-
- But such lone wolf methods are no longer acceptable in
the institutionally centered world of the 21st century. If foreign nations
are to be despoiled, it must be according to established procedures and
due process of law. Like the practice of men wearing tuxedos to prizefights,
brutality must be dignified by the trappings of social decorum. Thus, independent
looters and other wildcatters are no longer welcome. If you wish to get
in on the game, you must do so legally: you must incorporate, and make
certain you maintain your ties to the stateÌs power structure. Smedley
Butler would have expected nothing less.
-
-
- Butler Shaffer teaches at the Southwestern University
School of Law.
-
- Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com
-
- http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer42.html
- <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0922915865/lewrockwell/>
|