Have you ever wondered why wars are fought? What if the people who profit from war had to fight in them?
In War Is a Racket, General Smedley D. Butler proposes radical solutions to war’s financial appeal. He suggests capping earnings, democratizing war decisions, and limiting military actions to defense only.
Read on to discover how these changes could reshape the landscape of global conflicts.
Solutions to 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, proposing potential solutions to war that address these underlying economic motivations.
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.
