The “Rationale” of America’s Wars

W.J. Astore

Reason and Rationality Have Little to Do with Them

It is often hard to understand the reasons for America’s wars, especially since World War II, but they always have a rationale backed up by lies.  The rationale for Vietnam was the containment of communism and the domino theory.  The lie was that U.S. naval ships had been attacked at Tonkin Gulf.  The rationale for Iraq was overthrowing a ruthless dictator and spreading “freedom.”  The lie was that he had WMD and that he was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks.

Nations and peoples are not dominoes

The real reasons for America’s many disastrous wars are opaque.  Domestic politics are almost always paramount.  No U.S. president wants to be accused of losing a war or appearing to be weak, so starting or continuing a war is considered as “strength.”  Congress doesn’t want to be accused of “tying the hands of the president” or of “betraying the troops,” so most members happily go along with wars.  The military, of course, always thinks it can win, and wars are good for promotions and power.  And military contractors, the “merchants of death,” are even more happy to make money off war.  Not surprisingly, perhaps, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s farewell speech in 1961 warned America of the military-industrial complex, to which Ike had added Congress in an earlier draft.  Ike’s warning has been largely forgotten; even his own monument in DC obscures it.

In Washington today, the Democrats accuse the Republicans of being weak on Russia; the Republicans return the favor by accusing the Biden administration of being weak on China.  Military and industry are happy to play this blame game, knowing the Pentagon budget will soar as a result, as it has.  And thus a dangerous “new cold war” appears to be a certainty.

The folly and fallaciousness of America’s wars, along with their carnage, are enough to make any rational human angry, especially one who has served in one of these wars. Mike Murry, a Vietnam War veteran, is angry, and so am I.  Back in 2017, I wrote a piece on the atrociousness of the Vietnam War, to which Mr. Murry appended this comment.  It merits consideration by all thinking Americans.

The ”Rationale” of America’s Wars.  Comment by Mike Murry in 2017.

An excellent choice of words, “rationale.” Not the reason for doing something in the first place, but a conscious lie made up beforehand just to get things started, or an excuse invented afterwards to avoid accountability and, where required, the necessary punishment that true justice occasionally administers. Marine Corps General Smedley Butler once said that we have only two acceptable reasons for going to war: to defend our homes or defend the Constitution. In not a single case after World War II has either of these conditions applied, so that none of the pointless and ruinous fighting — I won’t dignify these Presidential/Career Military misadventures by calling them “war” — has had any justifiable reason or purpose. Not surprisingly, no Congress has declared war on another nation state since 1941 because no nation state on planet earth has attacked either American homes or America’s Constitution. The United States has not just “gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy,” as our sixth President, John Quincy Adams, warned us against foolishly doing, but has invented imaginary hobgoblins at home before even setting out to vanquish them on the far side of the globe.

Of course, Smedley Butler only made his remarks after serving for thirty years as an admitted “gangster for capitalism,” probably the best summary description of the U.S. military offered to date by one who ought to know. Today, as for the past seventy-plus years, the U.S. military simply fights — aimlessly and disastrously — for the sake of fighting. The fighting has no “reason” other than to provide a steady stream of outrageous corporate CEO bonuses, stockholder dividends, and the pensions and perquisites of retired senior military officers. This Warfare Welfare and Make-work Militarism has secondary beneficiaries, of course, most notably the hothouse orchids, special snowflakes and privileged peacock pugilists known as United States as “political leaders.” Naturally, the feeding and maintenance of this system of corrupt cronyism requires a death grip on over half the nation’s discretionary budget. As George Orwell wrote in “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” (the book-within-a-book from 1984):

The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.” 

In other words, the entire U.S. military/security monstrosity — which I like to call the Lunatic Leviathan — has only one purpose: to suck the life out of the domestic economy so that the productivity of the people’s labor will not result in the betterment of their station in life, which might in due course result in the discarding of America’s useless parasitic economic and political “elites.” Any transparent euphemism designed and deployed to disguise this ugly, fundamental truth properly deserves the label “rationale.” In no way do the usual and time-dishonored obfuscations amount to a reason. Reason has fled the United States, replaced by a deserved and rancid Ridicule. The country now consumes itself, lost in its own vicarious fears and fantasies featuring the celluloid exploits of our vaunted Visigoths vanquishing visions of vultures somewhere, someplace, at some time, until … eventually … after some “progress” and “fragile gains” … as T.S. Eliot wrote of The Hollow Men:

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper. 

Men and women so hollow that you can hear their own bullshit echoing in them even before they start moving their jaws and flapping their lips to begin lying.

4 thoughts on “The “Rationale” of America’s Wars

  1. This article, with help from Mike Murray, beutifully states the truth you’ve been publishing in Bracing Views these many months, concerning the MIC complex. Now, how to fix the problem? Not ‘we must learn to…’ advice, but concrete steps to take. Bernie Sanders’ attempts to reduce the Pentaton budget make sense, but will of course be trampled by congress. Neither you nor I can fix it by ourselves. I suspect that there is already a group of citizens working on it; if you or one of your readers connects with them, by all means tell us about it. Find David, give him a slingshot, and point him at Goliath.

    Like

    1. Thank you for your reply, Mr Feil, especially your assertion that “Neither you nor I can fix it [our manifest problems] by ourselves.” Of course not, but that confession of individual impotence overlooks the more fundamental solution to societal/political problems: namely, fixing ourselves — especially our use of language — as a first approximation to collective action that ultimately might result in eliminating government policies that we find exploitative, manipulative, duplicitous, or otherwise abhorrent. I can’t speak for Bill Astore, but for myself I try to keep uppermost in mind the following two quotes that illustrate my point:

      (1) From Fire in the Lake: the Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam (1972), a relevant epigram from Chapter Two, “Nations and Empires”:

      Tzu-lu said: “The ruler of Wei has been waiting for you in order with you to administer the government. What will you consider the first thing to be done?”

      The Master replied: “What is necessary is to rectify names. If names be not correct, language is not in accord with the truth of things. If language not be in accord with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.”

      (2) From “Politics and the English Language,” by George Orwell (1946):

      Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.

      Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers.

      As one example of rectifying the names and reversing the process of linguistic decline in the “Collective West” (what I prefer to call the Collected Waste) — i.e, “Calling Bullshit” — I prefer to use the accurate term “Interim Nazi Regime in Kiev,” or what Mark Sleboda calls the “Kiev Putsch Regime,” instead of the inaccurate mouth-noise “Ukraine” which hasn’t referred to a sovereign, democratically elected, economically and militarily neutral government since the United States put an end to it in 2014, establishing a disposable proxy vassal funded, armed, trained, and directed to attack ethnic Russians in general and dismantle the Russian Federation and its government in particular. Wildly extravagant aims, those, and not terribly effective in terms of their ultimate political and economic goals, although more than destructive enough.

      As an individual, I cannot predict whether others will adopt or share my particular use of English to describe current geopolitical and domestic realities. However, I can at least aspire to provide an example. Not what the younger people on social media, I believe, call an “influencer,” but just a retired expatriate ex-patriot who mostly composes verse polemics and occasional prose essays on Internet forums. I do what I can. Others do what they can. Hopefully it adds up, eventually, to something like a People’s Constitutional Convention convened to redesign a political and economic system that no longer serves the legitimate interests of either America or the World.

      As the Chinese say: “The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.”

      Like

Comments are closed.