In retirement, Butler penned the book 'War is a Racket," (1935) and became an outspoken critic of war profiteering, military adventurism, and what later came to be called the "military-industrial complex."
Unable to speak his mind while in uniform, Butler spoke out with a vengeance once he became a civilian. He toured the country, speaking to veteran's groups, civic organizations, and church groups. Butler's many public statements on war come from this time.
"
War is a racket. It always has been... A few profit - and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can't end it by disarmament conferences. You can't eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can't wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war."
"
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 is a racket. 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."
"
War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of 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 masses."
Butler's statements were made in the 1930s, but they are equally-valid today in the 21
st century - and supply critical insights into how and why governments and the powers-that-be convince their nations and peoples to go to war on their behalf.
New Players, Same Game
Butler's message is especially timely today, as America's corrupt and venal leadership class drags it toward yet another unnecessary war in the Middle East, this time in Syria.
On Wednesday, 21 August, the regime of Syrian President Bashir Assad is alleged to have used chemical weapons on opposition forces in the Damascus region; estimates place the number of dead close to one thousand. Immediately, the White House and the Pentagon responded in the expected manner.
"Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin," National Security Council spokeswoman Caitlin Hayden said.
In a brief official statement, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said: "The United States is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today."
Commenting on the incident, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel insisted that the use of chemical weapons by any army would violate international guidelines for armed conflicts, and said confirmation of these reports would be a "game changer" in terms of America's role in the Syrian civil war.
The communications above corroborate statements by Barack Obama that the use of chemical weapons would cross a "red line" the United States could not tolerate.
The statements of official Washington were quickly corroborated and affirmed by Israel, Great Britain, France, Qatar, and a number of other nations.
At first glance, nothing seems amiss. An observer could plausibly conclude that a major nation and its allies are responding appropriately to an international human rights crisis and war crime in the manner consistent with the values of the international community and the United Nations.
The trouble with this assessment is that it only scratches the surface of what is happening in the Middle East and the forces impelling the United States toward another war there. Moreover, the conclusion reached by our hypothetical observer is precisely the one sought by the powers-that-be and western political/economic elites. The man/woman on the street is being fed carefully-formulated propaganda designed to legitimize a conflict the global elites and their governments have already decided to wage. The last thing these shadowy power brokers want is an informed citizenry asking the kind of probing, penetrating questions that would expose their real agendas.
The official line is that America has to go to war because chemical weapons were used in Syria by the Assad regime. Under closer scrutiny, this reasoning doesn't add up.
Undoubtedly, President Bashir al-Assad is capable of using chemical weapons; he has proven to be as ruthless a dictator as his father. However, this is ultimately only of tangential relevance; the world is full of hard, cruel people who commit heinous crimes against others. Not many years ago, the international community dithered as hundreds of thousands of innocent people were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide. In the 1980s, over one million died in the decade-long Iran-Iraq war, and Saddam Hussein--our ally at the time - used chemical weapons against the Kurds, yet there was little outcry among western leaders at this atrocity. The "moral outrage" of our leaders appears very selective indeed. Why?
So-called "rebel" leaders in Syria now admit that the alleged attacks were actually as a result of an accident in handling chemical weapons supplied by the Saudis; obviously, the intentional use of such weapons by the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda or other anti-Assad factions cannot be ruled out. In light of these developments, one would expect the war hawks to back off, but that hasn't happened; Obama, McCain, and others are still clamoring for war. Why?
The so-called "rebels" in Syria, who are actually a loose alliance of Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda and other committed jihadists, have every incentive to stage a false flag operation to portray Assad as a war criminal; they want to delegitimize Assad and to draw in as much international support as possible. In contrast, Assad had/has little to gain by employing chemical weapons; doing so would hand his enemies a propaganda victory and strategic coup.
Even if Assad used chemical weapons, why should the United States go to war over it? If a military solution is needed in Syria, why is it the responsibility of the United States first, and not that of Syria's neighbors and other nations in the region? Syria isn't poised to invade the United States; it is a small nation half-way around the globe from North America. Even if we possess the desire to act as a global policeman on a beat, we are not that powerful--no nation is. It is delusional to think otherwise. To paraphrase Frederick the Great, "He who defends everything defends nothing."
Entangling ourselves in foreign wars is also contrary to the wise advice of the Founders, who warned us of the dangers of going abroad "in search of monsters to destroy." Obama has threatened to take the nation to war even in the absence of the advice and consent of Congress. His authority to do so is found nowhere in the constitution; indeed, the unilateral waging of war by a sitting president is an impeachable act.
If the U.S. is to go to war in Syria, who will pay for it? The country is broke; the size of our national debt and annual budget deficits defy the imagination. Thanks to ten years of operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are already waging war using billions of dollars borrowed from China and other international creditors. The White House would have us add to that already stupendous debt burden? For what reason?
Obama presumes to lecture Assad from a position of moral authority--but does he really have the right to do so? People who live in glass houses, it is said, should not throw stones. Considering the number of illegal drone strikes and targeted assassinations he has ordered around the world, Obama possesses little moral authority to lecture others on the appropriate use of force. Should we trust this man with blood on his hands?
Going to war with Syria is fraught with danger. Syria is a client state of China and Russia; both nations have extensive military and economic ties with Damascus. Moscow and Beijing have already warned NATO that they will not tolerate intervention within their sphere of influence. Russia's only military base on the Mediterranean--one they are unlikely to surrender willingly - is on the Syrian coast at Tartus. Iran is not likely to sit on the sidelines if the NATO bloc attacks Syria--and neither is the Shi'ite terrorist group Hezbollah. If the west intervenes in Syria, attacks on Israel and other targets will likely escalate. Hezbollah has 7,000 missiles pointed at Israel; if Syria is attacked, they will be loosed on targets inside that nation. Innocent people will die.
Given the tremendous stakes involved, attacking Syria is to risk touching off World War Three.
The Endgame
When evaluating human events, it is often useful to recall the Latin phrase
Cui bono-- which translates roughly as "To whose benefit?" To get at the root causes of this war, we need to examine who would benefit from it. Behind all of the political posturing, flag-waving and pseudo-moralizing by western leaders, there exists a concrete (if unspoken) set of reasons war is being sought in Syria. Let us examine some of them...
The largest natural gas field in the world is found in the Persian Gulf, where the South Pars/North Dome field sits astride Iran and Qatar. Two years ago, the governments of Iran, Iraq and Syria signed an agreement authorizing construction of a 1,500 mile-long pipeline--the so-called "Islamic pipeline" - from the field, which would terminate at Damascus after running through their respective nations. The estimated capacity of the pipeline would be ~ 40 billion cubic meters per year. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) for Europe would be supplied at Syria's Mediterranean ports; an undersea pipeline to Greece has also been discussed. The initial phase was projected to cost $10 billion dollars.
The Iranian/Iraqi/Syrian proposal leaves the Nabucco pipeline proposal, whose estimated capacity would be roughly 30 billion cubic meters/year, out in the cold. The Nabucco project was to originate in the Black Sea basin at Turkey, and run northwest through the Balkans to Europe.
Likewise, the "Islamic pipeline" proposal would threaten the Russian-backed "South Stream" pipeline originating in southwest Russia, which would transport LNG westward across the Black Sea and into southern Europe.
Complicating matters further, large natural gas deposits have been discovered in Syria near the port of Tartus - where Russia maintains a naval base - and near Homs. The Israelis have made large natural gas discoveries recently; they, too, want a piece of the action.
The 'Islamic pipeline" would run through Shi'ite Iran, then through Iraq (which has a Shia-majority population), and then into Syria, which is friendly to Shi'ite interests. A Shi'ite-controlled pipeline is unacceptable to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and their allies in the Arab League as they are Sunnis. Turkey, whose stake in the game would be lost under the proposed Iran/Iraq/Syria pipeline, also opposes the new venture. The United States and NATO are strategically-aligned with the Sunni Arab oil states, and also oppose Russian control over the chokepoint at Tartus.
According to a story in the Arabic-language newspaper
Al Akbar, Qatar has proposed an alternative plan, which has already been approved by the U.S. government, which would see the pipeline begin in Qatar, cross Saudi Arabia and Jordan and then enter Syria, whereupon it would branch in three directions--to the port of Lakatia, Syria; Tripoli, Lebanon, and Turkey. This route by-passes Shi'ite Iran entirely.
2
As noted in a story
3 by
Asia Times analyst Pepe Escobar, Qatar is doing everything in its power to thwart the Shi'ite pipeline project. The Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani, is alleged to have reached a quid pro quo agreement with the Muslim Brotherhood whereby Qatar and the other members of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) - with the tacit cooperation of Turkey - agree to arm the rebels in Syria and recognize the political ambitions of the Muslim Brothers in Syria and Jordan, in return for their support of the Sunni pipeline project and also a pledge to leave alone the existing regime in Qatar. True to their word, the governments of Ankara, Doha and Riyadh have been providing weapons, logistical support, training and funds to the anti-Assad forces in Syria. A Muslim Brotherhood regime in Syria and Jordan, supported by Qatar, would radically-change the regional balance of power and the dynamics of world natural gas markets in favor of Qatar and the GCC, and against Russia, China, Iraq, Iran and Syria.
For the Sunni Islamic states, additional benefits derive from going to war. Thanks to some luck and skillful behind-the-scenes political maneuvering by the member nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, two blocs--both of which contain historic enemies of the Arab world--are now on the brink of war. On one side are the "infidels" - the U.S., Israel and NATO. On the other, the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, Iraqis and Syrians--the Shi'ites and their allies. The sheiks in Saudi Arabia and Qatar must be rubbing their hands together in delight; their enemies are poised to do battle while they sit on the sidelines. The hated infidels - the United States and Israel and their NATO allies - will be fighting the hated Shi'ites, and no matter who comes out on top, the sheiks win. If the Saudis and Qataris want this war so badly, why aren't they the ones going to fight it?
War is a racket. It always has been... A few profit - and the many pay.
Why does Barack Obama want a war with Syria so badly? Why are John McCain and his Republican Party colleagues beating the drums of war so loudly?
Cui bono... who benefits?
Why is it necessary for the U.S. military to fight in the Middle East on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood? Perhaps the real question that should be asked is this: what do Obama, McCain and the other blood-thirsty pols in Washington, D.C.
owe the Saudis and their friends in the Ikhwan? Who benefits from such a war and why? Until the public gets valid answers to these questions, political support for the war should be withheld and its funding stopped.
Would you go to war to protect the U.S. dollar? That isn't an idle question, but one that cuts right to the heart of matters in the Middle East. Since the 1970s, OPEC and GCC have agreed that only U.S. dollars may be used to transact its business; this is the so-called "petrodollar" system which has conferred such enormous benefits to the Gulf oil states and to the United States. The Saudis and their allies, however, did not agree to such an arrangement out of the goodness of their hearts, but out of self-interest.
The quid pro quo in return for support of the petrodollar was that the United States and its allies would agree to defend the Gulf oil states against external aggression. The petrodollar system amounts to a gun held to the head of the U.S. and its leaders, since any refusal by the United States or its NATO allies to honor the petrodollar agreement would result in an immediate withdrawal of support for the dollar by the oil states. The likely outcome would be the destruction of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of international trade and possibly the fall of the present U.S. government.
Another means of displacing and/or destroying the petrodollar would be via a major war that upends the status quo. Russia, China, Syria and Iran all know this. Their leaders also know that whoever ends up controlling the new natural gas pipeline in the region will have enormous leverage in determining the reserve currency of global trade. At the very least, whoever controls the flow of LNG will be able to demand payment in the currency of their choice--and thereby reap an enormous windfall.
Conclusion
The political elites and powers-that-be in the United States would have us believe that a major war is worth risking on behalf of the Syrians, a people who--no so long ago--would have been identified as our enemies? It doesn't add up. The blunt truth is that the reasons being offered as justification for a Syrian war do not pass the smell test; the public isn't being told the truth. There is some sort of hidden agenda in play that our leaders are not disclosing.
As General Butler reminded us, wars are often waged for very different reasons than those sold to the public via propaganda and PR campaigns. Wars are usually rackets in the sense that few are genuinely necessary--and political and other leaders seldom tell the truth about why they wish to fight them. Why won't western political leaders and decision-makers tell the truth about their motives in seeking war with Syria?
One of the oldest and most-successful political tricks in the book is for a leader to wrap himself in the flag when trying to sell an unnecessary war to his people. Another ploy, especially popular in these politically-correct times, is to justify war on the basis of compassion or an appeal to emotion, such as "it is for the children" or to rescue this-or-that oppressed people. While wars are occasionally fought for such idealistic reasons, the vast majority of the time there is something else going on beneath the surface. Alarm bells should go off in your head whenever you hear a politician use such language; it is almost invariably a tip-off that there is some sort of hidden agenda in play.
Appeals to emotion are logical fallacies and red-herrings designed to shut-down reasoned opposition to the speaker's demand. Very few political leaders care about the fate of individual people as they claim to do; most are only using the suffering of others as a tool to manipulate voters into supporting their agenda. Refuse to accept glib or transparently-false or hackneyed arguments in favor of war. Insist that your leaders tell the truth; place the full burden of proof upon them to justify why war is necessary. After all, it isn't their blood or that of their families which will be shed if the dogs of war are set loose.
We should heed the wise advice of General Butler from long ago, and remember that very few wars are genuinely necessary. We should remember that war is a racket whose profits for the few are measured in dollars, but whose losses for the many are measured in blood. In seeking to understand human events, we should always ask
cui bono--to whose benefit?
Copyright 2013 Peter Farmer
- American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition
- Centre for Research on Globalization
- Asia Times
