My view of war is best described much better than I can by General Smedley D. Butler, the twice winner of the US Congressional Medal of Honor in his book, "War Is a Racket".
Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933 by General Smedley Butler, USMC
War is just a racket. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. 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.
I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
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.
(Butler was the most decorated US Marine of his time) ~
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
CNN/wolf blitzer is reporting that our government may have to change it's original strategy as time goes on. No one really knows what to expect or what will unfold. Troops may have to hit the ground to help topple Gadhafi. And that there is no exit strategy yet.....OR.....who would control libya IF they do topple Gadhafi.
Wolf covered obama's a$$ by saying that this is 'normal' in situations like this when you are trying to topple a brutal leader!!!
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
My friend is a marine and has mentioned General Smedley Butler many times. After reading your post, I just may get the book and read it now.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Bumble, Butler has been on both sides of War and may understand war like no other American. His book will open your eyes. Butler's career: ~Spanish-American War ~Philippine-American War * Battle of Noveleta ~Boxer Rebellion * Battle of Tientsin * Battle of San Tan Pating ~Banana Wars * Siege of Granada * Battle of Coyotepe Hill * Infiltration of Mexico City * Battle of Fort Dipitie * Battle of Fort Riviere ~Mexican Revolution * Battle of Veracruz ~World War I * Western Front
Awards: Medal of Honor (2) Marine Corps Brevet Medal Army Distinguished Service Medal Navy Distinguished Service Medal French Order of the Black Star
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I can respect your anti-war position...What I don't respect is the anti-war crowd and the compliant media to only use anti-war sentiment selectively to attack those they disagree agree with politically - primarily conservatives. Liberals become very quiet when it's "their guy" indiscriminately dropping the bombs.
On 4 December 1981 President Ronald Reagan signed Executive Order 12333, an Executive Order intended to extend powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies and direct the leaders of U.S. federal agencies to co-operate fully with CIA requests for information.[1] This executive order was entitled United States Intelligence Activities.
It was amended by Executive Order 13355: Strengthened Management of the Intelligence Community, on August 27, 2004. On July 30, 2008, President Bush issued Executive Order 13470[2] amending Executive Order 12333 to strengthen the role of the DNI.[3][4]
Part 2.11 of this executive order reiterates a proscription on US intelligence agencies sponsoring or carrying out an assassination. It reads[1]: No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
Putin likens U.N. Libya resolution to crusade calls VOTKINSK, Russia (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Monday likened the U.N. Security Council resolution supporting military action in Libya to medieval calls for crusades.
Putin, in the first major remarks from a Russian leader since a coalition of Western countries began air strikes in Libya, said that Muammar Gaddafi's government fell short of democracy but added that did not justify military intervention.
"The resolution is defective and flawed," Putin told workers at a Russian ballistic missile factory. "It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades."
Putin said that interference in other countries' internal affairs has become a trend in U.S. foreign policy and that the events in Libya indicated that Russia should strengthen its own defense capabilities.
Russia, a veto-wielding permanent Security Council member, abstained from the vote Thursday in which the council authorized a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" to protect civilians against Gaddafi's forces.
Putin condemns 'trend' of US military intervention Slams UN resolution allowing military action on Libya as a "medieval call to crusade" By AFP Published Monday, March 21, 2011
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday lashed out at the "steady trend" of US military intervention around the world, accusing Washington of acting without conscience or logic.
"I am concerned about the ease with which the decision to use force was taken," Russian news agencies quoted Putin as saying in reference to the current international campaign in Libya.
Noting that the United States had already involved itself in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, Putin added: "Now it's Libya's turn.
"And all of this under the guise of protecting peaceful civilians. Where is the logic, where is the conscience? There is neither one nor the other," Putin said.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin Monday slammed the UN resolution allowing military action on Libya as a "medieval call to crusade" and hit out at Washington for its readiness to resort to force.
In one of his most virulent diatribes against the West in years, Russia's de facto number one said there was no "logic" or "conscience" to the military action.
"The resolution by the Security Council, of course, is defective and flawed," Russian news agencies quoted Putin as telling workers on a visit to a missile factory.
"To me, it resembles some sort of medieval call to crusade when someone would appeal to someone to go to a certain place and free someone else."
What intervention in Libya tells us about the neocon-liberal alliance
Last Wednesday I spoke at an event at Hofstra University, on the subject of "Barack Obama's Foreign Policy." The other panelists were former DNC chair and 2004 presidential candidate Howard Dean and longtime Republican campaign guru Ed Rollins. The organizers at Hofstra were efficient and friendly, the audience asked good questions, and I thought both Dean and Rollins were gracious and insightful in their comments. All in all, it was a very successful session.
During the Q & A, I talked about the narrowness of foreign policy debate in Washington and the close political kinship between the liberal interventionists of the Democratic Party and the neoconservatives that dominate the GOP. At one point, I said that "liberal inteventionists are just ‘kinder, gentler' neocons, and neocons are just liberal interventionsts on steroids."
Dean challenged me rather forcefully on this point, declaring that there was simply no similarity whatsoever between a smart and sensible person like U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice and a "crazy guy" like Paul Wolfowitz. (I didn't write down Dean's exact words, but I am certain that he portrayed Wolfowitz in more-or-less those terms). I responded by listing all the similarites between the two schools of thought, and the discussion went on from there.
I mention this anecdote because I wonder what Dean would say now. In case you hadn't noticed, over the weekend President Obama took the nation to war against Libya, largely on the advice of liberal interventionists like Ambassador Rice, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and NSC aides Samantha Power and Michael McFaul. According to several news reports I've read, he did this despite objections from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon.
The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance. Both groups extol the virtues of democracy, both groups believe that U.S. power -- and especially its military power -- can be a highly effective tool of statecraft. Both groups are deeply alarmed at the prospect that WMD might be in the hands of anybody but the United States and its closest allies, and both groups think it is America's right and responsibility to fix lots of problems all over the world. Both groups consistently over-estimate how easy it will be to do this, however, which is why each has a propensity to get us involved in conflicts where our vital interests are not engaged and that end up costing a lot more than they initially expect.
So if you're baffled by how Mr. "Change You Can Believe In" morphed into Mr. "More of the Same," you shouldn't really be surprised. George Bush left in disgrace and Barack Obama took his place, but he brought with him a group of foreign policy advisors whose basic world views were not that different from the people they were replacing. I'm not saying their attitudes were identical, but the similarities are probably more important than the areas of disagreement. Most of the U.S. foreign policy establishment has become addicted to empire, it seems, and it doesn't really matter which party happens to be occupying Pennsylvania Avenue.
So where does this leave us? For starters, Barack Obama now owns not one but two wars. He inherited a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, and he chose to escalate instead of withdrawing. Instead of being George Bush's mismanaged blunder, Afghanistan became "Obama's War." And now he's taken on a second, potentially open-ended military commitment, after no public debate, scant consultation with Congress, without a clear articulation of national interest, and in the face of great public skepticism. Talk about going with a gut instinct.
When the Security Council passed Resolution 1973 last week and it was clear we were going to war, I credited the administration with letting Europe and the Arab League take the lead in the operation. My fear back then, however, was that the Europeans and Arab states would not be up to the job and that Uncle Sucker would end up holding the bag. But even there I gave them too much credit, insofar as U.S. forces have been extensively involved from the very start, and the Arab League has already gone wobbly on us. Can anyone really doubt that this affair will be perceived by people around the world as a United States-led operation, no matter what we say about it?
More importantly, despite Obama's declaration that he would not send ground troops into Libya -- a statement made to assuage an overcommitted military, reassure a skeptical public, or both -- what is he going to do if the air assault doesn't work? What if Qaddafi hangs tough, which would hardly be surprising given the dearth of attractive alternatives that he's facing? What if his supporters see this as another case of illegitimate Western interferences, and continue to back him? What if he moves forces back into the cities he controls, blends them in with the local population, and dares us to bomb civilians? Will the United States and its allies continue to pummel Libya until he says uncle? Or will Obama and Sarkozy and Cameron then decide that now it's time for special forces, or even ground troops?
And even if we are successful, what then? As in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, over forty years of Qaddafi's erratic and despotic rule have left Libya in very poor shape despite its oil wealth. Apart from some potentially fractious tribes, the country is almost completely lacking in effective national institutions. If Qaddafi goes we will own the place, and we will probably have to do something substantial to rebuild it lest it turn into an exporter of refugees, a breeding ground for criminals, or the sort of terrorist "safe haven" we're supposedly trying to prevent in Afghanistan.
But the real lesson is what it tells us about America's inability to resist the temptation to meddle with military power. Because the United States seems so much stronger than a country like Libya, well-intentioned liberal hawks can easily convince themselves that they can use the mailed fist at low cost and without onerous unintended consequences. When you have a big hammer the whole world looks like a nail; when you have thousand of cruise missiles and smart bombs and lots of B-2s and F-18s, the whole world looks like a target set. The United States doesn't get involved everywhere that despots crack down on rebels (as our limp reaction to the crackdowns in Yemen and Bahrain demonstrate), but lately we always seems to doing this sort of thing somewhere. Even a smart guy like Barack Obama couldn't keep himself from going abroad in search of a monster to destroy.
And even if this little adventure goes better than I expect, it's likely to come back to haunt us later. One reason that the Bush administration could stampede the country to war in Iraq was the apparent ease with which the United States had toppled the Taliban back in 2001. After a string of seeming successes dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. leaders and the American public had become convinced that the Pentagon had a magic formula for remaking whole countries without breaking a sweat. It took the debacle in Iraq and the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan to remind us of the limits of military power, and it seems to have taken Obama less than two years on the job to forget that lesson. We may get reminded again in Libya, but if we don't, the neocon/liberal alliance will be emboldened and we'll be more likely to stumble into a quagmire somewhere else.
And who's the big winner here? Back in Beijing, China's leaders must be smiling as they watch Washington walk open-eyed into another potential quagmire.
Finally, a war that Hillary and Barry can't say they were against before they were for it, before they were against it. They're the ones that started it.
When we were at war with Germany and Japan, there were formal declarations of war. It not the same as with Vietnam.
This of course is one of the main controversies about the Vietnam war, and it's obviously still not resolved for many people (myself included).
World War II started in September, 1939 but the USA didn't become a belligerent until over two years later -- officially, that is.
However, Americans got involved in a number of ways, some of which constituted acts of war (in breach of neutrality), and I suggest that this 2-year twilight period resembled the Vietnam war in that there were hostilities without a declaration of war.
Here are a few similarities:
Vietnam War: Up until 1965 American volunteers assisted Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians etc. to resist Communist forces.
World War II: American volunteer pilots formed the AVG to conduct operations in China and Burma against the Japanese.
Vietnam War war: American protesters marched in the streets, some even carrying Viet Cong and Democratic Republic of Vietnam flags.
World War II: The German-American Bund, with thousands of members (mostly of ethnic German background) drilled, marched and paraded, dressed in Nazi Party uniforms and flew the Swastika flag.* In a quieter way, the America First organization lobbied behind the scenes to keep the US neutral, which effectively aided the enemy.
* An American friend took extreme exception to this one, saying that the anti-war protesters can't be compared to an ethnic minority demonstrating in support of foreign Fascism. I'm merely saying that they're alike in that they were free to march and fly the "enemy" flag during an undeclared war.
That two year interlude was a time of intense moral debate in America. -- and rightly so, I maintain.
When war was declared in December, 1941 a point was reached when the period for debate was over, and the time had come for action; in other words, a clearly defined decision point and moral watershed had been crossed.
For the Vietnam war, when was that moment?
I sure don't know. Even during escalating hostilities, the controversy went on and the moral issues were still being debated; and the government never made the decisive move to mobilize the country for the effort.
I believe that the duty of the government is to show some moral leadership. This may seem laughable in view of Richard Nixon and Watergate, but then consider President Roosevelt.
A declaration of war is that kind of moral leadership; it removes the uncertainties and ambiguities and says, "Attention everyone, the country has a big problem, and we've all got to pull together and deal with it."
However, any resolution like this needs the support of the people, as expressed through Congress. And the closest thing to such a declaration about Vietnam that the American people ever got from Congress was the Tonkin Gulf Resolution.
Here's what I get when I consider this document, not from a legalistic point of view, but for its moral effect on the population as a call to action. See below for the text of the resolution, as well as the declaration of war on Japan for comparison.
The 1941 declaration of war is very short and to the point; it solidly pledges the entire resources of the country to the conflict. A citizen can be in no doubt that this is a call for an all-out effort and it clearly defines the situation.
However, suppose I'm an American citizen reading the Tonkin Gulf Resolution in 1964. All I can see is that something's going on in SE Asia, but it doesn't say that war has been thrust upon us; it even seems to imply that the President will handle the problem with only the armed forces currently available. The resolution doesn't ask me to do anything, or to respond in any particular way: there's no inherent appeal to plant a Victory Garden, buy War Bonds, or organize a community fund-raiser to purchase an F-105 for the Air Force; there's certainly no admonition to stop talking (no poster campaign about "loose lips sinks ships"). And the conflict will be over, not when we've "won", but when the *President* thinks it's over!
Even the hawkish Lt. General Davidson in _Secrets of the Vietnam War_ argues that Lyndon Johnson should have asked Congress for a declaration of war. That way he either gets a public mandate for the war, and pursues it in a realistic way, or he gets out; the idea being that if you've got a job to do you give it your best effort or you don't bother at all.
Regards, Doug Manzer
+----------------- DECLARATION OF WAR ON JAPAN ------------- JOINT RESOLUTION
Declaring that a state of war exists between the Imperial Government of Japan and the Government and the people of the United States and making provisions to prosecute the same.
Whereas the Imperial Government of Japan has committed unprovoked acts of war against the Government and the people of the United States of America:
Therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the state of war between the United States and the Imperial Government of Japan which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared; and the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all of the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
Approved, December 8, 1941, 4:10 p.m. E.S.T. +-------------------------
+----------------- GULF OF TONKIN RESOLUTION --------------- Joint Resolution of Congress H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964
(Department of State Bulletin, August 24, 1964)
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
That the Congress approves and supports the determination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression.
Section 2. The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared, as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.
Section 3. This resolution shall expire when the President shall determine that the peace and security of the area is reasonably assured by international conditions created by action of the United Nations or otherwise, except that it may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the Congress.
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
Logged
