Do Politicians Lie to us about war?
In his book “War is a Lie,” second edition (April 2016), David Swanson claims he presents a thorough refutation of every major argument used to justify wars, drawing on evidence from numerous past wars, with a focus on those that have been most widely defended as just and good. In essence, in his well-documented book, he says the people in power lie to us about why we should go to war, then change the lie during the war, and change it yet again after the war, all to justify the war in question. He illustrates how politicians provoke wars and why.
The United States now has a military presence in more than 140 countries, with more than 900 bases, and has had its military involved in military operations in 174 countries within the last few years.
Assuming all this to be true for the purposes of discussion, what should the Objectivist response be when questioned about the presence of the United States military in foreign lands (for example, in the South China Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and off the coast of Iran where two of our vessels went more than 20 miles inside Iranian waters) which appear to act as a provocation to other countries to go to war with the US?
The United States now has a military presence in more than 140 countries, with more than 900 bases, and has had its military involved in military operations in 174 countries within the last few years.
Assuming all this to be true for the purposes of discussion, what should the Objectivist response be when questioned about the presence of the United States military in foreign lands (for example, in the South China Sea, in the Baltic Sea, and off the coast of Iran where two of our vessels went more than 20 miles inside Iranian waters) which appear to act as a provocation to other countries to go to war with the US?
You cannot buy anything from or sell anything to someone you have killed, especially if he kills you first.
War is counter-productive.
Every bullet, every bomb represents lost capital. An unsold refrigerator has more value than a bullet.
It does happen that the world can be a dangerous place; and people do exist who will hurt you because perpetration and aggression is their nature. That said, we have yet to instantiate an intelligent, rational, and real alternative to war.
It is a truism that the greatest period of relative peace and prosperity was the Capitalist Century 1815-1914.
Well said, indeed.
Just a couple days ago I was listening to an interview of Simon Black (Michael Covel podcast). It was the first I've heard of the man. But, his story about going into Iraq based on that lie and how it forced him to really start questioning everything the government lies about - very powerful. They lie to us about everything: medicine, science, zika virus, the environment, global warming, fish counts (there's a random one I know something about)...all kinds of things. It's almost as though we're all living in a big Truman Show. I'm not even angry about it, anymore. I get a kick out of it now. Unfortunately, most just stomp around like zombies.
Strange stuff...
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/04/r...
Then they went on to lie about finding WMD's because they believed they had already lost the argument.
What did they find? I thought they only found some missiles that could exceed the range allowed by an agreement Iraq had entered and some UAVs that could potentially be used to deploy biological or chemical weapons if they had any, which they did not. Can you find a link to an article showing evidence bona fide WMDs in Iraq just prior to the '03 invasion and occupation?
Anyway, it's interesting to me that they decided they were losing the argument about WMD's, and started lying in order to keep the war going.
The shelf-life of that stuff isn't great though, so the argument was needed that he was 'manufacturing chemical weapons', of which we never found any real evidence to my knowledge. That being said, a noble military leader may actually fall on their sword in front of the media in order to rendition that stuff out before a bad-actor could snatch it.
For example, if they had 50 sites in an area the size of Texas, we might act dumb & stupid until we managed to get it all out of there.
Thanks for sharing it.
Was there justification for the Strikers to go and rescue John Galt? Or should the proper objectivist only rescue himself?
Don't think on it too hard, it's only a point made half in jest. Ultimately there's good and evil in the world. And the good people don't always have the means to beat evil. While we can and should offer help, if the people are unwilling to help themselves, we'll get nowhere. For example, in Vietnam I believe that the South Vietnamese truly did want to be free (ignoring the bungling of the war on the Politician's fault). In Iraq, most of the people only want to force their view of Islam on others. I.E. They didn't want to be totally free, only free from sunni, shiite, or kurdish control / views on themselves.
Film footage if you prefer.
Carter, being the wimp he was (and I would argue Obama's hero with his dithering), failed to act, and those 60 diplomats were imprisoned only for being Americans and employees of our government. When I was about 10, everywhere you went, or looked, yellow ribbons were tied around trees in remembrance and solidarity with the hostages. The "Hostages" were the only topic of the news. 444 days, and Carter had eroded the military to the point that we had no idea where they were, no idea how to extract them, and no willingness to fight the Iranians like we should have. We avoided their gunboats with a 'stand off' posture in the Gulf, our only rescue attempt involved a C-130 dropping a fuel bladder in the middle of the desert for a couple of helicopters to refuel at on their way to and from Tehran from aircraft carriers. The plan failed miserably. We were cowering before the Soviets with our hat in our hand.
The hostages were on a plane flying back to the US and touched down on European soil while Reagan was taking the oath of office. Carter likes to take credit, but it is well-known that the Reagan administration made it clear to the Iranians during transition that his first action would be to order an invasion of Iran if they were not released. Wow! It worked! But the libs and media like to show pictures of Carter hammering nails into a Habitat for Humanity home and we are supposed to believe he is an ambassador to the world or something.
It would be intelligence malpractice to NOT arm the Iraqis to a level to completely defend themselves, and potentially take the fight to the Iranians and overthrow their revolutionary government.
We also backed the Shaw of Iran for decades before he was overthrown in 1979... and they had chemical weapons being used against the Iraqis.
It's also possible both were home-grown efforts, both had been sending students to our universities for years and this isn't rocket science, but developing into a weaponized component takes some rudimentary skills. I also build AR-15s, sporting, and black powder rifles in my workshop - yet Hillary thinks that if you can't "buy" a gun, none would ever exist... so having access to American defense contractors, or not, doesn't make or break a chemical weapons program. WWI in Europe was practically medieval from a technology perspective yet they still managed to figure it out pretty efficiently. Nonetheless, the idea that Iran could constitute a weapons program in the middle of a religious zealot's civil war and a fight with its mortal enemy (Iraq) makes the argument a little phony. Hussein may have been able to do so during that time frame, but considerably easier if we gave it to him.
Biological weapons are much more complex, and without advanced western resources, if used, it would almost certainly come from the US+allies or the Russians. There is no evidence those were used though.
The idea that they didn't exist in Iraq though is just left-wing propaganda. It was definitely there. I would doubt there was ever any real threat to the US, and that's a different issue. Whether they existed though is definitely not in question. It's only the Anti-Bush ilk trying to drum up opposition from the Millennials, since the stuff doesn't exist in our grade school text books either, their youngster's "I wanna protest" mentality is easily swayed to that belief.
The world literally is on fire now, because we are not leading. In the absence of America, the 90% that are dictators, oligarchs, and zealots go on the march to increase their territory.
We hold our sphere of influence for many reasons, but rule over those peoples is not one of them. We go out of our way to respect their elections and right to self-government, even when it disappoints us to see the bad choices they sometimes make.
If we were doing it for monopolistic access by US corporations to their markets, we wouldn't have tremendous trade imbalances to our deficit. We wouldn't have been shipping grain to the Soviet Union all the way up until Reagan said "No" and was really the hair that broke the camel's back of the Soviet Union. Socialism is terrible for productivity, since the farmer gets paid the same whether they work in the field or not, so why not get a paycheck for doing nothing versus working your ass off all day? Its the same argument for the "Occupy" movement of being the '99%'... 'Occupy a Job' instead of the sidewalk and you will dig your way out of your poverty...
In the absence of American leadership, we have seen what happens. China is building islands in the South China Sea because they don't really do a good job of building aircraft carriers, and that makes the Japanese, Vietnamese, and everyone else very nervous as they are militarizing trade routes and areas where their oil companies are exploring the seabed for future resources. The Russians go it alone in Syria and defend Assad while basically helping ISIS because they don't care what ISIS is doing in Europe. All of the Middle East is basically on fire and will be generations before peace returns.
We're the indispensable country. The world needs a stabilizing force to counter that 90%, and if we stand down, no one else seems willing to 'stand up'.
If you really want to live in poverty... plenty of options outside of US borders...
The most difficult beliefs for people to examine are those beliefs which have been
(1) held for a long time,
(2) adopted before age of reason, and
(3) most often repeated.
Which explains why it is impossible to have a conversation on the two subjects one should never discuss socially: Religious and political beliefs. Both of these belief sets are indoctrinated by parents, teachers, religious leaders, and other adults, almost from birth, many years before the age of reason, and they are the most often repeatedly “drummed” into them. People will kill based upon their beliefs, but they will not examine whether the belief is true or false.
The more I learn about why any particular war was fought, the more dissillusioned I am about what I am told.
You see, the world doesn't go after Haiti to steal some of their stupid bananas. If you are a despot looking to conquer territory, you look for the largest and weakest landmass with the most population to enslave. Fortunately, we don't lose very often, and the indisputable fact that we are the leading military force in the world, and the strongest combat capability the world has ever seen, keeps them away. We can project and deploy more force thousands of miles from our shores than 95% of the world can within their home towns.
This isn't a new phenomenon by any means, we were born in blood and we have more or less been at war since the day of our independence..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...
I would also challenge you to identify more than 1 or 2 other countries (out of about 250) that have ever given blood and treasure for the freedom of another people.
In Bosnia, we were pretty much the pin cushion between 3 warring factions and stupidly took sides with some that we probably wouldn't have post-9/11.
In Addis Ababa, one of the soldiers gave a kid $5.00 for shining his boots and we watched as 2 thugs murdered him for his $5.00 in an alley.
I don't care about the 'optics' of the political motivations or whatever, quite frankly, my default solution for most of those shit-holes would be to nuke it from orbit and let God sort it out. The fact is, small regional conflicts have a nasty habit of expanding into larger conflicts, then drawing in the French or someone, and pretty soon its a bloodbath and we're in their helping our allies (which is exactly what happened in Vietnam by the way). Diffusing the situation quickly and quietly on the onset has proven tremendously more advantageous to us than the wait and see. Obama just bumped up the Syrian presence to like 500.. by later in the year it will be 1000, and if we don't actually do something, we'll be up to our eyeballs in it with another 4000 casualties when a strategic & sustained air campaign at the onset would have driven ISIS to the point that her own enemies would have taken her out and preserved the honor of the Americans that died in Iraq.
There are a lot of undeniable evils that we have done, but on average, the scale has always tipped in our favor. if you think that some leftist authors with their own agenda to push and doing their research on the left-wing websites are going to have full knowledge of what the President of the United States has as far as information provided to them, that can probably never be made public, then you are mistaken. I have zero love for Obama, but I trust that any American in that position makes the hard choices with the information provided to them.
If we had gone to Iraq for oil, we would have kept the oil fields... would seem pretty obvious. The fact is, we really should have just finished the job in 1990 and never went back.
Let's see the post about the conspiracy theories that the CIA orchestrated 9/11... I'm sure you have that in there somewhere....
Although, there is some debate over whether it was Iraqi or Iranian mustard agents that actually attacked Halabja, they were already swapping chemical artillery barrages nearby in the preceding days. The Kurds were trying to break away from Saddam's rule though, so he is the most-likely suspect. http://www.informationclearinghouse.i...
I was in Desert Storm, we were trained that it was better to be in the carbon-lined 30 lb chemical suit all day in 135 degree Saudi Arabian heat, than to die a horrible death from mustard, blister, neural, or blood agents.
The "lie" was that Saddam posed any kind of a material threat against the US after the Persian Gulf War, we had pounded them literally into the stone age. To think that only 10 years later he was able to mount any kind of a military force was ludicrous. The actual cause we had (and not much of one at that) was the continued combat engagement we had on a daily basis enforcing the no-fly zone in Southern Iraq. On any typical day, our patrols would fly over the Southern half of the country, Iraqi air defenses would lock on and normally fire at the jets, they would miss, and we would destroy the radar site. A day or two later it would happen again and had been for years. Kind of a very low-intensity skirmish war, but nonetheless he was well-contained at low cost. We should have just starved them out with sanctions.
tacked on 11 Sept 2001? Or not? Was this coun-
try attacked on 7 Dec 1941? Or not?
Is Israel a decent ally? Or not?
Do we need the freedom of the seas to trade
with allies? Or not?
I do not approve of the way the Viet Nam
War was conducted, nor am I in favor of
the military draft. It might have made
more sense either to attack Cuba, or
just leave both alone, as Ayn Rand seemed
to imply, in an article she wrote in the '60's.
But that does not mean we should never
go to war.
That said, I think politicians certainly
do lie. And American young men should
not be used as cannon fodder.
Is Isreal a decent ally? I don't know. But decent or not their fight is not our fight and we should not be involved. The freedom of the seas is not the issue in the South China sea, the issue is around artificial islands built by China.
I never said we should never go to war. I said Swanson presents an excellent case that the public has been lied to as to why the US went to war and the same reasons (updated) have been given since President Adams (our 2nd president) because the lies work. the populace believes the lies. Interestsingly, the lise change from those given before the wars, those given during rthe wars, and those given after the wars. Swanson writes an excellent book.
I'm often reminded of Chayefsky's script for "The Americanization of Emily," outstandingly delivered by the late James Garner:
"You American-haters bore me to tears, Miss Barham. I've dealt with Europeans all my life. I know all about us parvenus from the States who come over here and race around your old cathedral towns with our cameras and Coca-Cola bottles... Brawl in your pubs, paw your women, and act like we own the world. We over-tip. We talk too loud. We think we can buy anything with a Hershey bar.
I've had Germans and Italians tell me how politically ingenuous we are. And perhaps so. But we haven't managed a Hitler or Mussolini yet. I've had Frenchmen call me a savage because I only took half an hour for lunch. Hell, Miss Barham, the only reason the French take two hours for lunch is because the service in their restaurants is lousy. The most tedious lot are you British. We crass Americans didn't introduce war into your little island. This war, Miss Barham, to which we Americans are so insensitive, is the result of 2,000 years of European greed, barbarism, superstition, and stupidity. Don't blame it on our Coca-Cola bottles. Europe was a going brothel long before we came to town."
All this aside, an open mind must constantly ask itself: “Could I be wrong?” And, contrary to what we were all taught in school, is it possible the US is the great instigator of war, not peace?
Has the U.S. stumbled into conflicts that could have been avoided? Unquestionably. The 1846 war with Mexico is a prime example of deliberate aggressive land acquisition. The American Civil War could have been avoided with a buyout of slaveowners that would have cost a small fraction of the cost of the war. The Vietnam conflict was inherited from our wartime ally, France, out of Eisenhower's misguided loyalty.
Most wars are the result of the failure of diplomacy (read The Guns of August) or greed, and are continued out of an overblown sense of national pride. Even the first Gulf conflict, brought on by Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, can be attributed to a slip by a U.S. diplomat that gave Hussein the idea we would not oppose his invasion.
U wish I had more time regarding the other two paragraphs, but I commend Swanson's book "War is a Lie" for a lot of detail on the very subjects you name.
As a state senator in Illinois, the only 'grievance' the south really had with him was his membership in the newly-formed Republican party and its anti-slavery positions. This wasn't the era of mass-media and social networking, travel to the south from Illinois was about 2 weeks on horseback. They wouldn't have been able to pick him out of a police lineup and they attacked Fort Sumpter promptly after he took office, basically 90 days later - about the time it would take the pony express to move some messaging around for war planning.
The South's main grievances were the crony capitalism practiced by the North which required the crony's to get their mordida in order to allow goods to flow to the South.
You are on the wrong website... try this one, it's where Bernie and Hillary get all of their talking points... (Verbatim actually).
http://www.cpusa.org
But that is the way it was back in the old plural days when it took more than a day to gain bragging rights.
If you want to go stop crazed Africans from slaughtering each other you can do it on your own. Or, put money together and pay Blackwater to do it. But Congress, and definitely not the CIC, is authorized to spend my money helping other people in other nations. Is it awful? Sure. But the other problem is we are inconsistent to the extreme. If we were equitable about these interventions we would have turned Saudi Arabia to glass by now. (note the missing 28 pages redacted from the 9/11 report, plus they terrorize their people and kill thousands).
I am a noninterventionist because of that reason, and every time we do this stuff "unexpected consequences" happen. We bomb innocent people and hire ISIS to topple Gaddafi, and it is now a hellhole of Christians being beheaded and mass rapes. It never works out.
If you are working and living for the benefit of other people in other nations, that is non-objectivist.
That being said, there are probably a few not in that count... Groom Lake Weapons Range, CIA Black Sites, etc., but not enough to come up with an extra 250.
Additionally, those may not represent what you think of as a military base, some may just be depots, an embassy marine detachment, etc.
Embassy detachments are not counted, if they were all countries would be in all other recognized countries and they are far from "bases" as that term is commony used.
Between 1988 and 2005, through 5 subsequent rounds of a base selection process, 350 military bases, depots, and installations were selected and subsequently closed through what can sometimes be a lengthy redeployment process. We lost 2 Air Force Bases and at least 1 Army Depot here in Sacramento alone.
Closing a base is not an easy decision, the government is 'on the hook' in many different directions, it's not as simple as just appeasing a bunch of leftist doves. It decimated the Sacramento economy of 1.5 million people for over a decade. The same entity (the federal government) is suddenly paying extended unemployment benefits and retraining costs for the elimination of the workforce, so its not an immediate or linear savings.
Buying military supplies and weapons equals jobs & taxes paid by US citizens, is it a 100% trade off? No, of course not, but it's not 0 either... it's probably 50 or 60 cents on the dollar coming back in taxation at some level.
Military veterans are also some of the most productive members of society after their service. Education, training, and income are all markedly higher for veterans versus the general population, so the investment in that service turns into a lifetime of higher productivity and subsequent taxes collected.
Arguing the basing strategy overseas is just a Millennial generational thing. They were only a glimmer in their daddy's eye when we were faced-off against the Soviets in literally every corner of the world. We didn't 'twist arms' to acquire those bases, the hosting countries normally begged us to, and to base a strong nuclear deterrent within their borders to dissuade further Soviet expansion. Within a few years after WWII, the Soviets had pretty much conquered and ruled almost 50% of the earth.
And think on this - while there is a reason for classifying documents, a valid reason is NOT (a) to bury the truth, (b) to mislead the American people, or (c) prevent embarrassment to a politician. Yet, that type of classification is becoming more and more common...
“The war on Vietnam may have killed 4 million civilians or more, plus 1.1 million North Vietnamese troops, 40,000 South Vietnamese troops, and 58,000 U.S. forces.” Swanson, David (2016-04-05). War Is A Lie (Kindle Locations 3515-3516). Just World Books. Kindle Edition.
I do not think it was worth it even if we were not lied to. But my point was more directed toward the question if we the people had not been lied to, do Objectivists think we should have been in the war in the first place?