PDF Summary:War Is A Racket, by Smedley D. Butler

Is war truly a noble and patriotic endeavor, as it is often portrayed? In War Is A Racket, Smedley D. Butler challenges this conventional view. Drawing from his experience as a decorated military officer, he argues that wars are primarily driven by the financial interests of a wealthy few—from industrialists to bankers—rather than national security.

Butler exposes how major conflicts have enabled corporations and tycoons to amass vast fortunes, while ordinary citizens shoulder the immense costs through taxes, economic turmoil, and life-shattering casualties. He makes the case for radically restructuring the military-industrial system to eliminate the profit motive from warfare.

(continued)...

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.

The financial burdens of conflicts are shouldered by ordinary citizens.

The scars of conflict, along with mental anguish, are borne by military personnel, who, along with their loved ones, often pay the highest price with their lives.

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. The narrative 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. The book describes scenes where soldiers, ostensibly healthy, are irreparably mentally broken, their human dignity assaulted by the trauma they endured.

War imposes a heavy financial burden on citizens through steep taxes and economic turmoil.

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 numerous people.

In summary, 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.

To restructure the system in a way that eliminates financial incentives associated with warfare.

The often troubling impetus behind conflicts is the pursuit of financial gain, which complicates the essence of warfare. This analysis advocates for systemic reforms aimed at eliminating financial incentives associated with warfare.

To eliminate the financial incentives of conflict, it is essential to draft both the financial and industrial sectors in addition to enlisting human resources.

A 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.

Individuals with substantial wealth, ranging from business and finance sectors to governmental positions, should be entitled to the same level of modest remuneration as military personnel, thus reducing their incentive to instigate wars.

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.

Only those who will be actively involved in the fighting should have the authority to cast a vote on whether to commence combat operations.

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.

The primary responsibility of the armed forces should be the protection of our country's boundaries.

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.

The author's strong anti-war stance and desire to eliminate war

The writer's work conveys a deep condemnation of military hostilities and a sincere plea for their complete abolition.

The writer fundamentally condemns war, viewing it as an unethical enterprise detrimental to ordinary individuals.

He believes that the current military-industrial complex ought to be dismantled and reconstructed on a foundation genuinely oriented towards defense.

The author 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.

The writer 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.

The author 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.

The author passionately argues that we must forsake warfare, thereby halting the destruction and monetary profits it generates.

One might express a profound disdain for conflict by stating, "Let conflict be consigned to the flames!" The author 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 is not 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 like General 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. The author 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.