Is war a racket? Who benefits? Who pays?
General Smedley D. Butler’s War Is a Racket depicts conflict as essentially a venture that yields financial gain for a select few beneficiaries. This flies in the face of the common conviction that engaging in warfare is a necessary evil to maintain a country’s security.
Read on for our overview of this book that might have you looking at war in a different light.
Overview of Smedley D. Butler’s War Is a Racket
According to Smedley D. Butler, war is a racket. For a considerable time, war has been depicted as a crucial measure for protecting the nation and as a display of patriotism. Scrutinizing the underlying motives reveals a story in which the rallying cry for battle aligns with the quest for monetary profit.
Butler challenges the typical depiction of warfare, arguing that, while it’s often presented as vital for national defense, in reality, it primarily benefits wealthy individuals and corporations through financial gain. Their goal isn’t to safeguard the country but instead to accumulate significant profits originating from military conflict.
What General Butler Saw
During his time in the military, Butler started to have doubts and ultimately came to understand that conflicts are frequently orchestrated for the gain of capitalists and imperialists. He compares his function to being an enforcer for major corporations, the banking industry, and financial entities.
During his military career, he noted that the increasing covert activities of the Navy often incited conflicts instead of preventing them. The instances cited, such as the extensive use of aircraft in operations in the vicinity of the central Pacific atolls, indicate a move towards a more assertive maritime tactical approach.
Butler candidly recounts his involvement in various international missions which were designed to expand and solidify American business interests, as opposed to focusing on the nation’s defensive requirements. He demonstrates that his global influence in promoting capitalist goals is akin to the local supremacy of a gangster like Al Capone, covering endeavors from oil operations in Mexico to ventures motivated by profit in the Caribbean, and supporting agricultural initiatives in Honduras.
To sum up, the examination of military conflict from the perspective of an ex-military leader exposes it as a strategy that financially benefits a small elite at the expense of the many. Butler reveals the stark disparity between the romanticized image of conflict and the lucrative reality that enriches a small elite.
Who Makes Money From War?
The repercussions of conflict extend through economies and industries, resulting in the enrichment of a select few while the majority bear the cost. A scrutiny of the financial gains amassed by corporations and industrial tycoons during periods of military conflict reveals their substantial economic expansion in times of war.
The period of World War I exemplifies the capacity of certain sectors to accumulate significant earnings from participation in war activities. During the conflict, the United States witnessed a substantial increase in wealth among a small group, with more than twenty-one thousand people amassing fortunes that soared into the multi-million or billion-dollar range. Certain industries, including those producing munitions, providing financial services, constructing ships, manufacturing goods, processing meat, and engaging in speculative ventures, undoubtedly prospered, witnessing substantial growth in their economic profits.
The persistent expansion of defense-related operations has consistently been beneficial for producers and vendors, indicating that the pattern of reaping substantial profits is firmly established.
Corporations
The war significantly boosted the earnings of companies producing goods for military use. For instance, the DuPont family, known for their involvement in the production of weapons and chemical products, witnessed their average income skyrocket to an impressive $58 million during the war, up from $6 million annually before the hostilities began, showcasing a profit surge that exceeded their pre-war earnings by over ninefold. During the wartime period, Bethlehem Steel’s yearly earnings soared from an average of $6 million before the war to $49 million. During the conflict, the annual profits of US Steel surged from a pre-war yearly average of around $105 million to $240 million.
The industries engaged in supplying and constructing for the military have established an economic system that benefits from conflict. The government’s expenditures on the war amounted to $52 billion, with $39 billion directed towards combat operations, which in turn allowed industries to amass profits of $16 billion. Additionally, businesses are financially incentivized to support defense policies leading to increased spending, as demonstrated by the significant financial gains associated with the expansion of naval power. Military procurement strategies have convinced corporate leaders that conflict represents a growing opportunity for business.
The administrative division of the military orchestrates supply contracts for future conflicts, underscoring the inherent profit-driven framework, further emphasized by the consolidation and integration of state militias. Overall, this economic dynamic unveils a deep-rooted inclination towards the growth of armaments, indicating not just a recurring historical theme but also possible forthcoming tendencies in the economics of conflict.
Financiers
Throughout the time of heightened military conflict, the banking sector experienced substantial gains as a result of an increased demand for financial capital and loans. The income of these financiers was substantial and largely kept private, as they operated as partnerships without the requirement to disclose their financial performance, thereby maintaining secrecy about the exact figures.
Soldiers and Citizens Pay the Price of War
Ordinary citizens suffer the harsh repercussions of war—not only do soldiers and their loved ones grapple with physical wounds and psychological turmoil, but the wider community also shoulders the prolonged financial burdens, all without reaping any of the fiscal advantages that conflict might offer.
The Highest Price
Troops sent into combat endure extreme hardships and risk their lives, while those who profit financially do so safely and profitably from the safety of their own homes. Butler reveals the deep psychological and physical scars carried by veterans, illustrating how the traumas of conflict persist within the minds and bodies of those who have served, extending beyond geographical boundaries. Many former service members, who once led civilian lives, find the shift back to civilian life challenging, leading to an alarmingly high number of cases where their spirits are broken and their determination is shattered.
The relatives of servicemembers also endure considerable hardship, grappling with deep grief and upheaval as they deal with the repercussions of war. The alarmingly elevated mortality rates among former service members, in contrast to civilians, coupled with the troubling experiences they face in healthcare settings, underscore the profound consequences of armed conflict. Butler describes scenes where soldiers, ostensibly healthy, are irreparably mentally broken, their human dignity assaulted by the trauma they endured.
Financial Costs to the Citizenry
The burden of war’s financial demands leads to a rise in the nation’s debt, a sum that might take multiple generations to repay. War’s financial gains are reaped by a privileged minority, while the onerous costs are borne by many who receive no benefit. Economic turmoil frequently follows major conflicts, plunging ordinary people into further hardship. Taxpayers shoulder the economic weight of military operations that unevenly allocate gains, and these confrontations can precipitate significant financial declines where banks and stock exchanges may take advantage of the situation, as demonstrated by transactions involving government war bonds.
The citizens bear the financial strain of sustaining a robust military force, which includes a substantial naval component, as funds are diverted from essential societal needs to bolster the expansion of the defense industry.
War’s legacy inflicts lasting wounds, affecting not just the sites of conflict but also the domestic sphere, where the repercussions are borne by families over time. Financial unpredictability manifests in various ways, including periods of economic downturn and persistent tax burdens, and it consistently has profound effects on the lives and well-being of many people.
Eliminate the Financial Incentives of War
The often troubling impetus behind conflicts is the pursuit of financial gain, which complicates the essence of warfare. Butler’s analysis advocates for systemic reforms aimed at eliminating financial incentives associated with warfare.
Butler’s suggested approach to lessen war’s financial appeal involves mandating the commitment of financial resources, industrial capabilities, and workforce participation. Prior to calling its citizens to serve, the nation ensures that their financial commitments align with the interests of those who stand to gain from warfare.
#1: Cap the Earnings of Noncombatants
To reduce the financial motivations that might provoke conflict, the proposal is that the earnings of affluent industrialists and public servants should be capped at a level commensurate with the pay of military service members. Draft the weapons producers, the financial backers, and the market speculators to receive the same $30 monthly pay that a soldier in combat is entitled to. This approach would make their concerns more in tune with the human toll of warfare, thereby reducing the encouragement of engaging in conflicts for financial gain.
#2: Democratize War
An additional measure to curb the profit motive in war is the implementation of a limited plebiscite for declaring war. In the proposed system, only those called upon to put their lives on the line in battle would have the power to determine the initiation of war. This democratic approach seeks to ensure that decisions about war and peace are made by those who stand to pay the highest personal cost.
#3: Only Play Defense
The crux of the argument is that the military’s sole purpose should be the protection of the country’s borders. Restricting the armed forces to solely defensive actions could avert the initiation of conflicts driven by profit rather than the safety of the nation.
Butler’s Strong Anti-War Stance
Butler’s work conveys a deep condemnation of military hostilities and a sincere plea for their complete abolition. He fundamentally condemns war, viewing it as an unethical enterprise detrimental to ordinary individuals.
Overhaul the Military-Industrial Complex
Butler scrutinizes the beneficiaries of warfare, contesting the idea that military forces are predominantly defensive and suggesting that their operations are mostly aggressive. This is at odds with the proclaimed principles of a military dedicated to protective strategies. Reflecting on their time in the armed forces, they come to understand that their duties were intricately linked to a system that, in the end, predominantly benefited capitalist corporations.
Butler vehemently criticizes the deployment of the National Guard in labor disputes throughout the New Deal era. The claim is that the business elite, by exerting influence over the security forces, have aggressively suppressed U.S. workers’ attempts to obtain a fairer portion of the earnings. The claim is that operations carried out by the National Guard, which is under federal command, might diverge from the broader interests of the general populace, including the hometowns of its members.
Butler expresses profound admiration for the ordinary soldiers and non-commissioned officers in all branches of the armed forces, while he articulates disapproval of the direction and supervision emanating from those with traditionalist views. The commanders who issue directives are accountable for the utilization of the National Guard in quelling American laborers.
Only Play Defense
Butler advocates for a fundamental transformation in the military’s strategic stance, focusing solely on defensive strategies. They underscore that the foremost duty of military personnel is to protect, making it clear that their function isn’t to impose their will on the policies of other countries or their own, nor to dominate other peoples. The viewpoint they uphold criticizes the frequent misuse of armed forces for personal advantage, condemning it as a strategy for certain factions to increase their influence and control, while citing the actions of figures such as General Douglas MacArthur and the military’s influence on policy-making.
The analysis further explores how naval military powers often strive to dominate in Central America and participate in worldwide contests to achieve maritime dominance. Butler highlights the threats to peace and welfare unless a new naval policy is adopted that divorces the Navy from politics and dissociates it from money-making enterprises. This implies advocating for a fundamental transformation and realignment of the defense industry to adhere strictly to the principles of genuine defense.
