War Is A Racket

                   

WAR.  It seems to be as old as time itself.  And so many people seem to think it is inevitable.  However, it turns out that is not really true.  War is neither timeless nor inevitable.   It has a beginning, and it has an end.  The beginning was about 7000 years ago (with the advent of patriarchy), while the end will be coming very soon (with the inevitable decline and fall of patriarchy, and rise of women in the not-too-distant future).  And the end can't come soon enough!

Patriarchy inherently rewards aggression and violence, no doubt about that.  And it messes with our heads so as to condition us to accept such violence as normal.  And of course there is men's tendency to think that war and scarcity are inevitable, which become self-fulfilling prophecies.  Women, on the other hand, would tend to reject such backwards thinking if they were in charge.  The late, great Buckminster Fuller said as much.

But there is also another reason why war is likely to occur under patriarchy, and that reason is discussed in depth by Major General Smedley Butler in his 1935 book, War Is A Racket.  Put simply, war is indeed a racket that is designed to further enrich the already ultra-rich oligarchs.  In other words, its genesis is none other than evil and powerful men who are willing to lie, cheat, steal, and kill for filthy lucre, and those sycophantic lackeys and ignorant masses who are brainwashed and duped to go along with it.   And of course, we know that patriarchy itself inevitably leads to oligarchy in the first place due to its "might makes right" and "winner take all" paradigm (that is nowadays most often cleverly disguised by the persistent and utterly hollow myth of "meritocracy").

Indeed, patriarchy itself be thought of as a gender war writ large, and the only way to end it once and for all--and all other wars that come from it--is for men to surrender to Women.  It's a war men have lost before the war even began, despite winning nearly every battle--men just don't realize it yet.

That said, General Butler's book is more about how the perennial racket of war actually works in practice, and how to smash it for good (as opposed to the why the oligarchy exists in the first place).  But it goes a very long way towards explaining it, and he would be spinning in his grave if he were to see today's massive, imperialistic war machine.

From the Wikipedia article:

In War Is a Racket, Butler points to a variety of examples, mostly from World War I, where industrialists, whose operations were subsidized by public funding, were able to generate substantial profits, making money from mass human suffering.

The work is divided into five chapters:

1. War is a racket
2. Who makes the profits?
3. Who pays the bills?
4. How to smash this racket!
5. To hell with war!

It contains this summary:

"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. 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. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the 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 very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."

Then he goes on to discuss who exactly profits from it and how.  It turns out it is not just weapons manufacturers, but also the big banks and other businesses that directly or indirectly deal with it as well.  In fact, the banksters are probably the biggest beneficiaries of war, since they lend money to finance it and then claw back so much in interest.  And manufacturers of non-weapons goods also have a market to sell their wares to in the military.  And of course, let's not forget all the resources plundered from the other countries as "spoils of war".

(And now we can add "defense contractors", aka mercenary corporations, such as DynCorp, Blackwater, Halliburton, KBR, Raytheon, et al. to the list of war profiteers as well.)

War is, of course, a negative-sum game overall.  It does not really create wealth on balance, it actually destroys more than it creates.  But it certainly brings in a ludicrous amount of ill-gotten wealth in the form of profit, plunder, and usury for the oligarchy.  As for the idea that it "stimulates the economy" in the short run, that is technically true, but as neo-Keynesian economist Dr. Paul Krugman has famously noted years ago, a faked alien invasion would be every bit as stimulating, but without all of the serious side effects such as countless deaths, injuries, PTSD, family breakdown, resource depletion, pollution, ecological damage, and property damage.

And guess who foots the bill for it all?  You guessed it--the taxpayers.  The oligarchs pull the wool over our eyes, while laughing all the way to the bank.  But truly the biggest part of the bill is paid for in blood by the soldiers themselves.  And even for those who survive the horrors of war, it still takes its toll on them regardless, both physically and psychologically.  And these soldiers generally hail not from the ranks of the wealthy, but rather from the poor and broader working class.  Not much has changed in that regard today, it seems.

(Note that since the gold standard was abolished in 1971, our Monetarily Sovereign federal government does not actually need taxes to fund anything, since they can just "print" (create) the money now if they wanted.  But since wars inherently chew through ludicrous amounts of non-monetary resources, all wars are thus inflationary regardless, so We the People still pay for it in the form of higher prices.)

And that's to say nothing of the human toll of civilians in the other countries as well, who bear the brunt of it.

Then, General Butler discusses how to smash this evil racket once and for all.  To summarize, the three steps are as follows:  1) Take the profit out of war, 2) Put it up to a vote (limited to those who would be eligible for the draft) as to whether or not a war should be declared, and 3) Limit our military forces to home defense purposes.  Otherwise, nothing will stop the racket.

Again, as noted on Wikipedia:

In the booklet's penultimate chapter, Butler recommended three steps to disrupt the war racket:

1. Making war unprofitable. Butler suggests that the means for war should be "conscripted" before those who would fight the war:

It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted. […] Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month [NOTE: that's $511/month in 2019 dollars], the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

2. Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it. He also suggests a limited referendum to determine if the war is to be fought. Eligible to vote would be those who risk death on the front lines.
3. Limitation of militaries to self-defense. For the United States, Butler recommends that the Navy be limited, by law, to operating within 200 miles of the coastline, and the Army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression. 

Indeed, the time to end all of this insanity and evil is yesterday.  So what do we do in the meantime while patriarchy still exists?  Thus, inspired by Butler, I propose that a new law be passed that we call the War Pigs Act, named after both the ineffectual and toothless War Powers Resolution of 1973 and the 1970 Black Sabbath song "War Pigs".  The first part of the new law would put some teeth in the War Powers Act by closing the loopholes and holding the President liable for any consequences of a war that is not authorized by Congress and is not during a state of emergency caused by an attack on the USA.  And absent a formal declaration of war by Congress, absolutely NO war may last beyond 90 days (60 days followed by a 30 day withdrawal), save for a temporary authorization of force that expires 90 days after the authorization passes or 180 days after the war began (if it began before the new law went into effect), whichever occurs first.  After that, there must be a formal declaration of war, or the war must end.  Period.

The second part of the law would implement some of General Butler's recommendations from his book, taking into account that we currently have an all-volunteer military.  Take the profit out of war, first of all.  Use the tax code to do so.  And for any war lasting beyond six months (which by definition would now require a formal declaration of war), require an annual limited plebiscite of all citizens that would be eligible for military service.  Make it a non-secret ballot such that those who vote "yes" would be drafted if we run out of volunteers, followed by those who abstain from the vote if necessary.  Those who vote "no" would be exempt from any such draft.  A kind of "consensual conscription", if you will.  We would all have skin in the game.  Women would be included as well, but before they draft the very first Woman, we should draft men in their 40s and 50s first.  That's the demographic group who starts the wars but rarely fights them.  It's only fair, right fellas?  Watch as war becomes a thing of the past, at least for the stupid ones and decade(s) long quagmires like Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.

(It would also be a good idea to do like the Iroquois once did:  give Women elders the power to VETO any decision to go to war.  That alone would prevent essentially all wars that are not waged in strict and absolute defense of the homeland.)

For the record, I am personally 100% against the draft on principle.  Unless absolutely necessary, I view it as a form of slavery and involuntary servitude, and if there were ever such a thing as a truly just war (as per St. Augustine's Just War Theory criteria), which is about as rare as a unicorn, conscription would be unnecessary, since volunteers would be plentiful.  And today's technology further makes it largely obsolete to raise such large numbers of boots on the ground.  But since nuance, gray areas, and exceptions that prove every rule do in fact exist in the real world (see WWII and the American Civil War, for example), I will note that if we ever must have a draft, only those who voted yes (or chose not to vote) for such a war should be drafted.

General Butler was a true American hero and patriot.  After his distinguished career in the United States Marine Corps including during WWI (during and after which he eventually found out just how much of a racket it really was), he later quashed an attempted Wall Street fascist coup against FDR's government in 1933-1934.  Yes, there really was a plot by the Rockefellers, Mellon Bank, Standard Oil, General Motors, Goodyear, US Steel, and many others (including pro-Nazi forces!) to overthrow the federal government and install their own fascist dictatorship do their bidding, complete with concentration camps for, in their own words, "Jews and other undesirables".  And the money for the plot bankrolled by the big banks/corporations was funneled through Prescott Bush's companies (yes, THAT Bush, who also did business with the Nazis as well).  They all thought they could use Butler for the plot and he pretended to play along at first, only to foil their plot by telling Congress about it just before it went ahead.  He literally saved America from falling to full-blown fascism, in other words.  He was indeed history's original whistleblower, and then in 1935, he wrote his magnum opus, which unfortunately fell on deaf ears the world over.

As General Butler famously said, 

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

"Either war is obsolete, or man is."

-- Buckminster Fuller

"War, what is it good for?  Absolutely NOTHING!"

-- Edwin Starr

"Come the war, come the avarice, come the war, come hell...Come attrition, come the reek of bones, come attrition, come hell...This is why, why we fight, why we lie awake...And this is why, this is why we fight..."

-- The Decemberists

"Now the labor leader's screaming when they close the missile plant, United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore. Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, but I ain't marching anymore."

-- Phil Ochs

"I declare the war is over, it's over, it's over..."

-- Phil Ochs

"But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you would only try, is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes.  And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before.  If we win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore"

-- Phil Ochs 

NO WAR WITH IRAN!

Those Epstein files must be REALLY BAD for Trump to literally start a war with Iran to distract from them!  Regardless of the reason why, this is a stupid, reckless and immoral war of choice, and we at the TSAP hereby condemn it in the strongest terms.

The Epstein Files Are Released (In Part), And They Are Horrifying!

(WARNING:  VERY NSFW!)

Well, more of the infamous Epstein Files have finally been released, and they are horrifying!  And that is just a fraction of it!

Since there is a LOT of misinformation going around out there online, it is best to check the actual files directly at the source, the U.S. Justice Department's own website, and see for yourself:

https://www.justice.gov/epstein

(Content warning:  graphic description of rape and sexual abuse of minors, very disturbing subject matter, on that website as well as mentions on this page as well.  Viewer discretion advised.)

That site contains a searchable database of the files that have been released thus far.  Even with all of the redactions, what we know so far is still pretty incriminating of SO many people in high places.  For example, just type "Trump" into the search bar, and see for yourself.  (Yes, he is in the files.  BIGLY.  Believe me.)

Now you see why he would go to such great lengths to cover this up and sweep it under the rug, and even risk starting World War III and Civil War 2.0 to "wag the dog" and distract from it all.

Notice also how Trumplethinskin, who would frivolously sue practically anyone who so much as hurts his feelings, did NOT sue Katie Johnson (remember her from 2016, when she dropped her case against him due to death threats, just before the election?) for defamation?  Or anyone else who directly accused him of allegedly raping or sexually abusing them?  Because then he would have had to take the stand, and he wouldn't want that!

As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

(Mic drop)

Two Minutes To Midnight (Iron Maiden)

Now that the Doomsday Clock is now officially at 85 seconds to midnight (!) as of January 27, 2026, I felt that this famous 1984 classic rock song by Iron Maiden is rather appropriate at this moment in history:

Remember The 1971 May Day Protests

Fun Fact:  When NOTHING else seemed to work to end the Vietnam War, the 1971 May Day protests in DC actually DID work.  Basically, they went right into the belly of the beast and shut down the city by blocking/disrupting traffic for hours.  More than 12,000 people were arrested in total, making it the largest mass arrest in US history, overwhelming the system in the process.  Why are we mentioning this now in this current moment in history?  

No reason.

https://library.georgetown.edu/exhibition/most-influential-protest-you%E2%80%99ve-never-heard-may-day-1971

About Venezuela....

About Venezuela.....

(Mic drop)

Conscription: The Machiavellian Solution In Search Of A Problem (And Why It Will NOT Help The Youth Rights Movement)

With World War III looking more and more likely on the horizon each day that goes by due to current events, it is only a matter of time before one of the biggest American taboos returns to the forefront.  The specter of bringing back the military draft (conscription) has been raised occasionally since it was last abolished in 1973, but it never seemed to catch on since then for a number of reasons:  1) it was unnecessary and redundant with today's technology, 2) it would mess up and dilute the increasingly professional all-volunteer military, 3) most Americans don't support such a policy.  And that's to say nothing of the collective trauma from the ill-fated Vietnam War that has lingered ever since to one degree or another.  

And there are also the fundamental philosophical-ethical arguments against conscription as well, of course, including Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative:  "Always treat humanity as an end itself, and never solely as a means".  And predictably, Niccolo "ends justify the means" Machiavelli himself, often seen as Kant's philosophical foil, was a huge fan of conscription, as he felt that mercenaries would be untrustworthy in terms of loyalty (gotta love that false binary there with no room for nuance whatsoever).  

But every so often, the old zombie arguments (often in superficial shiny new drag) in favor of bringing back the draft resurface like a bad case of herpes.  They can be grouped into the following:  1) Necessity, 2) Equality/Equity, and 3) Social Engineering.  And here we will not only debunk them, but also debone, slice, dice, julienne, and ultimately lay waste to their scorched remains.

The "necessity" argument is probably the only good and coherent argument strong enough to justify the forcible confiscation of labor services (i.e. slavery, which is what conscription really is) of innocent erstwhile civilians in an otherwise free society worthy of the name.  That is, if the necessity in question is actually true.  Spoiler alert:  for most wars throughout history, to say nothing of peacetime, that was not really true.  That is because a) most wars throughout history were unnecessary wars of choice that could have been avoided, and thus inherently wrong except on the side legitimately defending itself, b) there are almost always alternatives to conscription even if a war is necessary, such as (gasp!) paying our troops more, rather than forcibly doing it on the cheap, and c) a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose.  (And being the world's de facto police force is really NOT a war of necessity, by the way.)  And all of these apply a fortiori with today's technology, which reduces the need for the large numbers of troops in the wars of the more distant past.

(And any fair-weather "allies" halfway around the world who are unwilling or unable to defend themselves without forcing Americans to fight their battles for them, also deserve to lose by the way, a fortiori.)

Indeed, in a truly "just war" that meets all of St. Augustine's criteria (which, let's face it, is about as rare as a unicorn!), conscription would be unnecessary and redundant, since volunteers would be plentiful, at least for a while. 

Of course, to be fair, given a large enough scale AND a long enough duration of a war that really is NOT a war of choice and absolutely can't be pulled out of, the necessity argument CAN perhaps become valid in those select cases.  World War II and the American Civil War are textbook examples of such from history.  (Ditto for, God forbid, World War III, assuming it isn't largely an air and nuclear war, which would supersede this argument, albeit in a bad way).  But these "edge cases" are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Then comes the "equality" or "equity" argument, sometimes called the "poverty draft" or "skin in the game".  That is, poor and working class people (who often join at least partly for economic reasons) are disproportionately overrepresented in the all-volunteer military, and the rich are grossly underrepresented.  That thus makes it easier for our elected leaders and their wealthier supporters to be cavalier about making war in general, knowing that they or their kids won't personally be affected.  Also along with that, it is seen as a gross injustice towards the poor and working class, and especially for racialized minorities, that they do such a disproportionate share of the fighting and dying.  While there is a kernel of truth to both components of this argument, that does NOT change the basic fact that the elites have ALWAYS been able to get themselves out of harm's way, draft or no draft, and practically ALL wars in recorded history have been primarily fought by the poor and working class for the benefit and wealth of the rich.  And the real corrective for that is to simply abolish poverty and the desperation that goes with it with a robust social welfare state including, but not limited to, Universal Basic Income, single-payer Medicare For All, and free college.  And yes, per the iron laws of supply and demand, we will have to pay our troops significantly more than they are paid now, or more accurately, pay them what they are really worth for once!  And, of course, we have got to knock it off with the imperialistic wars of choice!

As for any supposedly "altruistic" or "humanitarian" wars (in the rare cases when it is not merely a cover for imperialism), hey, if you feel like YOU personally have a duty to risk dying for random people halfway around the world for whatever reason, be my guest.  You can even go start your own "Human Shield Brigade" with like-minded folks.  Just don't force or coerce other people to do it for you to soothe YOUR aching conscience, capisce?  Such "vicarious altruism" with other people's blood and treasure is really not altruism at all, but rather egoism in disguise.

(By the way, the mere presence of a draft does NOT preclude a country's leaders from being cavalier about war or getting stuck in long military quagmires.  See Vietnam, for example.  Or more recently, Israel.)

Regardless, in any case, two wrongs do NOT make a right!

Then there is the perennial "social engineering" or  argument, which is probably the most vexing one of all.  Not because is it particularly hard to debunk (it's really quite easy, as you will quickly see), but because of the way it sticks in people's minds so puzzlingly well even after the first two arguments are revealed to be hollow.  Basically, some people arrogantly seem to think that they somehow know what is best for everyone else at a personal level, and believe that they therefore have the right to force or coerce it upon them if they won't willingly accept it "for their own good" and the supposed "greater good" of society.  Such a thing is utterly patronizing and paternalistic, but we see it in so many other areas of life that few of us hardly even notice it anymore.  So when people claim that bring back a (presumably universal) draft would somehow be a panacea for whatever ails society, there will always be some people who listen and agree.  But regardless of how one feels about that and the limits of social engineering in a free society, it is literally the WORST argument there is for forcing people against their will to do something with as much gravitas (and danger) as military service.  Regardless of what ancillary utilitarian benefits there may be to a draft, it all comes back to Machiavelli versus Kant once again.  If we truly believe that human beings are ends in themselves and not just means to an end, then conscription is automatically a non-starter.

Otherwise, it is a Machiavellian solution in search of a problem, whatever that problem may be.

And all this is before we even get into the issue of age.  As Phil Ochs famously sang in the 1960s, "It's always the old, who lead us to the war, it's always the young who fall".  And that remains true to this day.  If we really want to "share the sacrifice equally" like some modern conscription advocates claim to want, then by that logic, perhaps we should draft people in their 40s and 50s and beyond too.  And of course, the very first to be drafted should be the billionaires, followed by the millionaires, and so on down the pyramid.  After all, they are the ones who benefit from it the most, while being historically the most underrepresented.  Or even fairer still, perhaps we could have "consensual conscription" where all wars are put up to a (non-secret) popular vote, and those who vote yes are drafted as needed, followed by those who abstained, and those who voted no would be exempt from the draft.  But otherwise, there is really no such thing as an equitable draft, since drafts are by their very nature discriminatory.

Finally, there also sometimes is brought up the idea that being back the draft would somehow help the youth rights movement.  It is true that the lowering of the voting age, age of majority, and drinking age from 21 to 18 was partly spurred by the Vietnam draft and the idea that it was wrong for someone to be considered old enough to die for their country but too young to vote, drink, etc.  But guess what?  The existence of a draft was neither necessary nor sufficient to effect such a change.  First, the draft was in effect with a draft age of 18 from 1941-1946 and from 1948 to 1973, and yet it took three decades until 1971 to lower the voting age and until 1973 to lower the drinking age and age of majority in most states to 18.  And meanwhile, Canada and the UK didn't have any draft since 1945 and 1960, respectively, and yet they still managed to lower the age for full adult rights to 18 by the early 1970s, which then became an international consensus.  And no Western country, draft or no draft, raised its drinking age from 18 back to 21 except the USA in the 1980s and Lithuania in 2018, the latter country doing so after they brought back the draft in 2016.  And in general, countries that currently have significant conscription don't seem to be more youth-rights friendly than those who don't.

It's more likely that demographics were the biggest factor:  in 1968, fully half of the American population was under 18, and a vast majority was under 25.  The same was true in many other countries well.  Thus they had a strength in numbers that we wouldn't see in today's ageing population.  Bringing back the draft would almost certainly backfire on the youth rights movement today, even if it may invigorate the anti-war movement all the same.

So let's put this zombie idea to rest once and for all.  If WWIII happens, then all bets are off of course, but in any case, it is NOT a net benefit to the youth rights movement.

And to those who still think we should bring back the draft, we say, "YOU FIRST!" Go on.  (crickets)

(Mic drop)

Just Say NO To World War 3!

It has come to our attention that there is a faction in the USA and elsewhere of largely neoconservatives who are incessantly itching for a hot war with Iran more than ever.  The casus belli this time (as though the warmongers really needed a new one) is 1) that Iran has long supported and funded both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is true, and 2) that Iran's fingerprints are (allegedly) all over Hamas's brutal and barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, which is debatable.  That is in addition to Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions, of course, which was the previous justification, as well as their proxy attacks against American troops in Iraq and Syria.

(For the record, we thoroughly condemn Hamas's brutal and barbaric terrorist attack against Israel, without qualification.)

That said, going to war with Iran directly would be a major strategic blunder for a number of reasons.  First, a ground war and occupation there would be an even worse quagmire than the ill-fated ground wars and occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Secondly, even a predominantly air war, which could set Iran back centuries if we really wanted to, would ultimately create a "failed state" which would be a magnet for extremists in the future.  The inevitable blowback sooner or later would be horrendous to say the least.  As the saying goes, "you break it, you own it".  At the same time, a half-assed war would in fact be the worst of all options in the long run, and any forcible "regime change" will inevitably create a dangerous power vacuum sooner or later.  And finally, a war with Iran would be very likely to draw in Iran's staunchest allies:  Russia, China, and North Korea, three nuclear-armed countries that any sane person does NOT want to get into a hot war with!  That would be World War 3, essentially, and even if it somehow doesn't go nuclear (which is far from guaranteed), it would still be truly horrendous and extremely costly in both lives and resources.  Any "victory" would be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

(Nuclear war is simply too horrible to even contemplate, something no sane person could ever support, period.  But just one miscommunication and it can happen.)

In other words, the USA attacking Iran would not be like cutting of the head off of the proverbial snake, but rather more like a Hydra whose heads will keep multiplying each time one is severed.  OOPS!

At the very least, a three-front war like that (without going nuclear) would NOT be even remotely possible to win with an all-volunteer military for very long.  The Reserves and National Guard can only buy us so much time for what will likely be a very long and bloody war of attrition that would likely dwarf World Wars 1 and 2 and the American Civil War combined.  That's the biggest elephant in the room.  So for all the people who want to go to war with Iran (or any the other aforementioned countries), let's put it up to a vote.  Those who vote "yes", well, greetings, you have just been drafted!  Those who abstained will be next if needed.  Those who vote "no" shall be exempt.  And the vote should be repeated annually to decide whether or not to renew the war effort for yet another year.  And if that is still somehow not enough for a truly existential war that already began and where withdrawal is truly not an option, and a more comprehensive draft is still somehow needed, then draft the billionaires first, then the millionaires, and so on.  It's only fair.

With absolutely NO apologies to the modern-day Ayn Rand disciples who are itching to fight Iran, and yet paradoxically quail at the very thought of personally having any sort of skin in the game themselves.

(Normally I would agree that a country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and that in any case they could easily have enough recruits for an all-volunteer military if they simply paid them enough.  And in principle that still remains true.  But a World War 3, due to its inherently massive scale and duration, would kinda be the exception that proves the rule.)

So seriously, warmongers.  KNOCK IT OFF.  Yesterday.  Do everything you possibly can to defuse any impulse to start such a war.  Yesterday.  The life that you save may very well be your own.

QED

How To Smash The Permanent War Racket For Good

On the 20th anniversary of "Quagmire Accomplished" in Iraq, Dennis Kucinich wrote a great article about the utter disaster it has been, and the massive human costs and follies of wars of aggression in general.  I agree with him 100%.  Also, we should note that it was part of a much larger racket as well, that is, a state of permanent war that the oligarchs have been benefiting handsomely from for decades, all while cannibalizing our own country in the process, as Chris Hedges has noted in another good article.

My response to that article was as follows:

As Major General Smedley Butler said back on 1935, "War Is A Racket". It was true then, and is true now, *a fortiori*.

https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html 

I will note that bringing back the draft would not really solve anything. Conscription did not prevent Vietnam from dragging on, and even (largely) universal conscription still doesn't prevent Israel from their own perpetual war against Palestinians and occasionally other neighbors as well. And plenty of non-imperialisitic countries have all-volunteer militaries currently, because they know it's a strategically superior choice in the 21st century. 

And then, there is that annoying little detail that conscription is a form of slavery, of course. And the working class would still bear the overwhelming brunt of it, while the elites would still find a way to stay out of harm's way. The middle class, however, would be further hollowed out. 

Would it heal our divided nation if brought back today? That is very doubtful. I think it would look far more like the (often very racist) 1863 Draft Riots of NYC than the anti-war protests of the Vietnam era. 

In other words, the grass may look greener on the other side, but it still has to be mowed all the same. 

One good idea though would be my own variant of General Butler's idea, "consensual conscription", where for all wars going forward, it should be put up to a vote by those of military age. Those who vote no will be exempt, while those who abstain or vote yes will be eligible to be drafted into that war. And renew the vote every year. If the majority vote no, the war must end within 90 days, period. Also, raise the eligibility age to include people in their 40s, 50s and even early 60s. You know, those who are of the age to start the wars but not actually serve in them. Those who are 4F or CO would join the newly-created Human Shield Brigade, which is exactly what it sounds like: a sort of Peace Corps on steroids whose primary purpose is to nonviolently put their bodies on the line to protect civilian populations wherever they are deployed. 

Everyone would have skin in the game, and yet no one would be forced or coerced into participating in a war they do not believe in, or any war for that matter. 

And eradicating poverty with UBI, free college, single-payer Medicare for all, and stuff like that would also end the so-called "poverty draft" as well. Of course, that would mean we would have to (gasp!) pay our troops what they are actually worth, that is, significantly more than they are currently being paid. And since the federal government is Monetarily Sovereign, they could easily print their own money to do so.

Problem solved.

More details, not included in my response:

The Selective Service System should be put back into "deep standby" like it was from 1975-1980, where all registration is suspended.  Only reactivate the registration requirement when an actual draft is either in effect and/or likely will be in the near future.  And yes, if that ever does happen, women should be included as well.  It's really only fair, right?  What's good for the goose is good for the gander, and if you really want equality, you got it, Toyota!

For the record, the TSAP of course does not support bringing back an actual draft.  A country that needs a draft to defend itself deserves to lose, and any fair-weather "allies" unwilling or unable to defend themselves without the help of foreign conscript armies from halfway around the world also deserve to lose as well.  And if there were a truly "just war", conscription would be unnecessary, as volunteers would be plentiful.  But in those vanishingly rare instances where we are actually in a war of necessity, and volunteers are no longer enough, the sacrifice should be shared equally.  Not only in terms of gender, but also age, class, race, and so on as well.

If anything, the billionaires should go first, THEN we can talk about drafting the broader working class.

Regardless though, any conscription for the sole or primary purpose of social engineering, as opposed to absolute necessity for defense as a last resort, has absolutely zero place in a free society.  It is an alien culture that ultimately belongs to totalitarians.

Also, the half-century old War Powers Resolution of 1973 needs to be updated and tightened so the President cannot just start indefinitely undefined wars willy-nilly, and the President should be held fully liable for any damages resulting from the abuse of this power.  Wars or any war-adjacent military actions in foreign countries lasting more than 90 days should require a formal and official declaration of war by Congress per the Constitution, and if not it must be halted within 90 days, no exceptions.  No more indefinite or nebulous AUMFs without a very strict sunset clause.  No more decades-long quagmires ever again.  Like, EVER.  And the nuclear launch codes must be taken off of "hair trigger alert", and only given when the President's senior advisers approve.

And of course, the profit needs to be taken out of war.  The crony capitalism of the mercenary-industrial complex needs to end yesterday, full stop.  And all it would take would be a few tweaks of the tax code, plus the intestinal fortitude to actually enforce it.

As General Butler famously said, 

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

"Either war is obsolete, or man is."

-- Buckminster Fuller

"War, what is it good for?  Absolutely NOTHING!"

-- Edwin Starr

"Come the war, come the avarice, come the war, come hell...Come attrition, come the reek of bones, come attrition, come hell...This is why, why we fight, why we lie awake...And this is why, this is why we fight..."

-- The Decemberists

"Now the labor leader's screaming when they close the missile plant, United Fruit screams at the Cuban shore. Call it peace or call it treason, call it love or call it reason, but I ain't marching anymore."

-- Phil Ochs

"I declare the war is over, it's over, it's over..."

-- Phil Ochs

"But the hardest thing I'll ask you, if you would only try, is take your children by their hands and look into their eyes.  And there you'll see the answer you should have seen before.  If we win the wars at home, there'll be no fighting anymore"

-- Phil Ochs 

Afghanistan: A War We Lost Before The War Began (Part Deux)

With America's longest war in Afghanistan coming to an inevitably disastrous end after 20 years, it is worth noting all of the things that had been memory-holed about its origins.  The 9/11 attacks that had been used as a pretext for the initial invasion had always been under a cloud of suspicion as possibly being an inside job (to one degree or another), or at least that the whole story had not been told about it.  But for argument's sake, let's just take at face value for a moment that these horrific terrorist attacks were entirely perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden and his vile al-Qaeda henchmen as per the official story and ignore their undeniable Saudi connections.

First, Senator Ron Paul had his own plan by October 10, 2001 on how to deal with these terrorists and bring them to justice that would not have even required so much as an invasion, let alone regime change in Afghanistan.  Per the US Constitution, there is a remedy for bringing such non-state rogue actors to justice, known as the "Letter of Marque and Reprisal", which Ron Paul supported.  It would have put a bounty on their heads and thus authorized not only the military but also privateers from anywhere in the world to go on a manhunt and get these perpetrators.  And it would have been far cheaper and with far fewer casualties as well.  But clearly this proposal fell on the very deafest of ears, because reasons. And as they say, the rest is history. 

Secondly, Jordan Schachtel points out that within the first week of damaging aerial bombing by the USA and NATO in mid-October 2001, the Taliban were actually willing to negotiate an offer to turn over Bin Laden to a neutral third country to be put on trial there, in return for us ending the bombing.  Had President Bush actually taken them up on that offer, the war would have ended in ONE WEEK instead of 20 years, Bin Laden would have been brought to justice, and tens of thousands of causalities on both sides and trillions of dollars could have been averted.  But Bush, clearly under the influence of Cheney and the neocons, arrogantly rebuffed their offer and continued to escalate the war, because reasons. And as they say, the rest is history.

(The Bush administration and the corporate MSM deliberately conflating the Taliban and al-Qaeda, who at best grudgingly tolerated each other as co-belligerents against the West, certainly contributed to this strategic blunder and folly of epic proportions.)

Thirdly, not long after that, during the early stages of the ground invasion of Afghanistan in December 2001, Bin Laden was once again in America's sights.  He was apparently hiding in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan, heading rapidly towards the Pakistan border. But the powers that be "accidentally" lost him and thus let him and his buddies escape into Pakistan, and did not even bother to have our troops so much as cross the border until nearly a decade later when, under the leadership of President Obama, he was ultimately snuffed out by the US Navy Seals on May 1, 2011.  Why it took that long can only be explained by the Machiavellian powers that be wanting to prolong the war for their own nefarious gains, because reasons.  And as they say, the rest is history.

Fourthly, anyone who claims to have supported this war on feminist grounds (as if wars for imperialistic white-savior conquest could ever be feminist) should answer the following question:  why did our government not simply arm and fund the WOMEN over there, instead of forcibly installing and propping up a corrupt male-dominated puppet government that was left utterly dependent on a male-dominated foreign power for all of 20 years?  Nevermind, we already know the painfully obvious answer.  Because reasons.  And as they say, the rest is history. 

And finally, unlike today, at least Vietnam and Iraq both had a "decent interval", as President Nixon called it, between the completion of America's troop withdrawal and the shit really hitting the fan over there.  In both cases, it was about two years.  Had we just pulled out much sooner while the Taliban was still weaker, that would have likely been true for Afghanistan as well to some extent.  We had numerous opportunities to make a fairly clean break and temporarily "save face" at a cost of significantly less blood and treasure, but chose not to, because reasons.  And as they say, the rest is history.

And if you still think this was all about 9/11 or "making the world safe for democracy", well, we've got a nice bridge we'd like to sell you.  As Major General Smedley Butler once famously said, "War Is A Racket".  And as he also said at the end of his book:

"TO HELL WITH WAR!"

But alas, of course his words of wisdom also fell on the very deafest of ears ever since.  The neocons on the right, the "bleeding heart interventionists" on the pseudo-left, and the oligarchs' mercenary-industrial complex that they serve and who ultimately profit very, very handsomely from it all, will see to it that this racket never ends on their watch.  Because reasons.  And as they say, well, the rest is history...

UPDATE 1:  The ever-insightful Peter van Buren wrote an excellent article about the war's history as well.  Food for thought indeed.  We know all too well what happens when we ignore the lessons of history. 

UPDATE 2:  On August 30, 2021, the troop withdrawal from Afghanistan was completed, one day before the official deadline of August 31.  That is, the very last US troops have now finally left Afghanistan for good.  As tragic as the circumstances were in which we left, sooner or later it had to be done.  And now, it is finished.  This time, let us actually LEARN and REMEMBER the lessons that we should have learned after the tragic fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975.

Afghanistan: A War We Lost Before The War Began

The headlines these days about Afghanistan have been quite sobering to say the least.  It looks increasingly likely that this 20 year old quagmire of a war will end the same way as the Vietnam War did.  "Operation Frequent Wind" certainly comes to mind, not least due to the frequent windbag politicians who got us into this inherently unwinnable mess that had literally no practical exit strategy to speak of.

Like Vietnam on crack, this is "a war we lost before the war began", as Phil Ochs put it in his song "White Boots Marching In A Yellow Land" about that other unwinnable quagmire.  Afghanistan has been called "the graveyard of empires" for a reason, after all.  The moment President Bush decided to force regime change in Afghanistan, as opposed to simply going in to fight al-Qaeda and bring Bin Laden to (rough) justice for 9/11, that was a "mission creep" that created a dangerous power vacuum and basically dug our graves over there.  Yes, the Taliban were and still are backwards, brutal, violent, repressive, theocratic, misogynistic, and even totalitarian, but guess what?  The Taliban was never really a material threat to the USA, and the local "allies" (read: warlords) of ours that de facto replaced them in nearly all of the country outside of Kabul have thus created a chaotic anocracy, which basically translates to "pick your poison".  Eventually, Afghanistan even became fertile ground for ISIL for a time, who as we have seen is far more evil and dangerous than even the Taliban.  And if and when the weak Kabul government and military finally rolls over and plays dead for the Taliban, remember:  if they do it after 20 years, then no matter how long we stay, whether 10, 20, or even 100+ years, the end result would be the same regardless.  At best, the USA only delayed the inevitable, at a massively unacceptable cost of blood and treasure.

Yes, in both of these wars, our troops technically won every single battle.  But in the long run, as the famous quote says, "Yes, I know.  It's also irrelevant."

So yes, the TSAP still, albeit with a heavy heart, fully supports America's troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.  As a wise man once said recently, if Afghanistan falls to the Taliban after 20 years, it does not mean that we left too early, but that we left 19 years too late.  It is tragic and heartbreaking indeed that it was basically all for naught, as the part about bringing al-Qaeda and Bin Laden to justice would not have required forced regime change in Afghanistan at all.  Bin Laden was hiding out in Pakistan for most of the time, after all, and nearly all of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals.  (That was of course memory-holed as quickly as Bin Laden's family members were surreptitiously whisked out of the country back to their home country, Saudi Arabia.)

We have said it before, and we will say it again.  There is NO (Western) military solution in Afghanistan, period.  Or Iraq, or Syria, or anywhere else in the region, basically.  The closest thing there is to a solution would be for us to give every *woman* an AK-47 or M-16 and tell them to take over their country and mow down anyone who stands in their way.  Let Allah sort it out.  Problem solved.  But the powers that be over here would of course not be too keen on that idea.  After all they wouldn't want women in THIS country getting any ideas, now would they?

If and when the Taliban returns to their old tricks of brutal and misogynistic repression, then WOE to any cowardly Afghan men that fail to protect their women and children!  And by rolling over for the forces of evil, they make a mockery of our troops as well.

The best way to support our troops is to bring them home alive, and stop abusing them in these unnecessary quagmires of choice that really only benefit the oligarchs.  The best time to do it was 20 years ago. The second best time to do it is right now.

UPDATE:  On August 15th, the capital Kabul has effectively fallen to the Taliban, and President Ghani has fled the country in fear as his own troops basically rolled over and played dead.  This highly unfortunate turn of events has happened at a much faster pace than anyone had predicted.  But the hypocrisy of those Republicans who blame President Biden for this sad state of affairs is quite rich considering that Biden not only followed the very same troop withdrawal plan set by Trump himself, but actually pushed back Trump's withdrawal deadline by nearly four months.  Yes, really.  Like Vietnam, as the saying goes, America may have won every battle, but in the end, that's also irrelevant.

I mean, you KNOW it's bad when Ron Paul (and/or his son Rand Paul) comes across as the voice of reason!  And whether you love him or hate him, it is clear that throughout all 20 years of this ill-fated war of (mostly) choice, while both Democrats and Republicans alike would mindlessly flip and flop around, Paul has basically been on the right side of history all along.

Getting out of Afghanistan is the ONE thing that Trump, Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Ron/Rand Paul could ALL agree on.  Even if Trump denies it now.

And finally, as for America's very clear moral obligation to the Afghan people that we would otherwise leave behind, we believe Emma Lazarus said it best:  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...I lift my lamp beside the golden door."  In other words, "refugees welcome".  The Kabul airport must be secured now to allow safe passage out of the country.  Beyond that, after the current evacuations and rescue operations are complete, that is it.  It's over. 

After 20 years of this infernal quagmire, C'EST FINI!

As the late, great Major General Smedley Butler famously said, "TO HELL WITH WAR!"