A War Is Coming? Nah!

Column by Paul Bonneau.

Exclusive to STR

I remember the day my Dad came home driving one of the earliest Toyota Coronas sold over here, rather than his usual Ford. It was amusing to see this big man in a little car. It was also strange to see him driving a Japanese product since he had fought in Iwo Jima and Okinawa during the war. One might naturally think those awful conflicts would have soured him on anything Japanese forever, rather than seeing him being an early adopter. He loved that little car, and it was far from the last Toyota we had in our family.

But then, he was always pretty open-minded; I remember one war story he told. He was in charge of the engine room in an LCT (Landing Craft Tank). At one point a Japanese pilot (wisely) decided not to give his life for the Emperor as a Kamikaze, and downed his plane in the sea. The skipper told the men to just shoot the pilot, but Dad was having none of that. He got them to go over and pick the pilot up, and as far as we know, the pilot did survive the war.

It’s funny how commerce can soothe the savage mind. Can we even imagine going to war with Japanese or Germans any more? It’s inconceivable. This is not 1940s America any more, with no exposure to foreign products or foreign media, and with our domestic media completely controlled by the information gatekeepers. In fact, the word “foreign” even seems a bit quaint. With the Internet, foreigners are no longer foreign to us.

I don’t know how often I’ve read or heard the fatalistic prediction over on lewrockwell.com about how our fading empire must end up in a major war, just because that is what fading empires always do. I’m not buying it.

The only reason we have all the little brushfire wars we do have, is because they cause no dislocations domestically. The age of massive mobilization appears to be over. The last time that was tried--Vietnam--almost generated a revolution. How can you have a major war without a draft? The wars we have these days are only possible because the military has transitioned toward “no-risk” soldiering. We’ve been warring for many years now with tiny numbers of casualties; drone pilots sit in air-conditioned comfort with a can of pop on the counter as they do their killing.

I understand that it’s no comfort to the victims of these wars that the troops are not as destructive as the typical WWII army, but the American people hardly know these brush fires are going on. There is no draft, no rationing, and no inconvenience whatever, just the occasional news story about a soldier who volunteered to mess around in somebody else’s country. Those few troops who do manage to get themselves killed, well, they signed up for that risk, didn’t they? Just as I did when I was young. Teenage boys stuffed to the gills with government school propaganda are usually not the most rational people around . . . .

Yes, the ruling class is always trying to whip up war fever, but how well is that working out? The Japanese went to war with the US because the US government cut off their oil supplies, causing major disruption to their economy. Seriously, are we going to war with China because they won’t lend us enough money to piss away on idiotic government programs? No, we aren’t. Yeah, a bit of Islamophobia has taken root here, but still, how serious is it? I spent some time in the Middle East some years ago, and the notion that such a thinly-settled and backward population could be a threat is absurd. Whenever our government wants to grab their oil, it just goes ahead and does it. Will our entire country be mobilized to fight the deadly Muslim menace? Don’t make me laugh.

No, major war is not in our future. If Iran is invaded, it will be about like it was when Iraq was invaded, except they won’t even have that much “success.” It will just be another idiocy, demonstrating how evil and stupid the ruling bastards are. What is much more likely is more of the same thing we have already--the crony class grabbing oil here and there from weak African and Middle Eastern countries, expending a very few volunteer U.S. troops to do it.

The only real major war threat that is on the horizon is revolution here at home--if they are stupid enough to continue on their current repressive course once they accomplish the destruction of the dollar. That will be a bad one, but in the end, we may well be rid of the rulers. Every cloud has its silver lining.

10
Your rating: None Average: 10 (2 votes)
Paul Bonneau's picture
Columns on STR: 77
n/a

Comments

Jim Davies's picture

Well reasoned, Paul. A major war does appear unlikely.
 
Two caveats: (1) a major war looked unlikely in 1914 also. Over by Christmas, it was supposed to be. And (2) No draft was needed for any of America's three biggest wars; 1861, 1917 or 1941. Not at first; volunteers were lining up, eager to join the fun. Only later was compulsion needed.
 
What, though, do you think of the probability that some non-state fanatics will let loose a few WMDs, in desperate, suicidal retaliation for your choice of a score of FedGov interventions across the globe?

KenK's picture

I disagree Paul. Look at the 9/11 attack. Real or false flag events against the US could easily start a war. I am sorta surprised that angle escaped your notice.

On a side note my paternal grandfather served in the [UK] Royal Army in WW2. Never, ever bought a thing made or sold by Germans if he could help it for the rest of his life. Had to do with some lingering bitterness over the V-2 rocket they dropped on his neighborhood. Some people hold grudges. Go figure?

Mark Davis's picture

The wars in the Middle East are not directly about oil, they are mostly about propping up the dollar and secondly about strategic positioning.  In order to control the world, you must control the Middle East and be able to force your worthless pieces of paper money on the world.  The Petrodollar arrangement made with the Saudis entrenched US involvement in the area. 
Major wars are designed and supported by the International Banking Cartel.  The primary purpose of taking out Saddam Hussein and Kaddafi were that they had started up Gold backed currencies that they were trying to go regional with and also taking alternative currencies for their oil.  Iran is now trying to do the same thing and why they are so demonized.  If China and Russia join Iran in this deal, then we will see a major war.
Finally we have to consider how the guys at the top are psychopaths intent on creating "order out of chaos" (i.e. a World State) which requires major conflagrations.

Eric Field's picture

I hope you are right, but I fear that Jim's WWI comparison might be accurate. We have witnessed the multiple near implosions of Western civilization during the last century and a half. I think that stateless freedom are what modern civilization will ultimately transition to, but I wonder how bloody the transition will be.

Paul's picture

What did we see after 9/11? People driving around for a month with little flags on their cars. A far cry from joining the military to go in harm's way and kill (potential) invaders.

Has Britain made a compact with Poland to go to war if Poland is invaded? Not that I am aware of. The sorts of things that caused Europe to fall into total war are not present today. Keep in mind we got into WWI and WWII primarily as a result of following England (the "Anglosphere", or whatever that is called). Though there is still an Anglosphere, England is no longer dragging us into war, because England is not getting into war itself (other than following the US into the current brushwars).

Any war propaganda is instantly hooted down on the Internet. What do you think all those people are doing, looking at their smartphones all day? Reading the New York Times and Washington Post? No. Many people now have friends around the world.

As to 1861, that does not counter my point that the next major war for Americans, if there is any, will be fought in America.

Jim Davies's picture

The FedGov did not lead Americans into the two World Wars to "follow England." Under Wilson and then FDR, it did so with the calculated purpose of displacing England (more accurately, Britain.)
 
The interventions were cunningly and successfully done; each time, the US waited for the combatants to get exhausted, then came in with a coup de grace at relatively low cost. Thus: end of the British Empire, start of the US Empire.
 
FDR's intervention was especially cunning, and not just his Pearl Harbor deception. Chamberlain's promise to the Poles was made in March 1939 without a shred of evident need; it surprised everyone, even the Poles. It was the biggest diplomatic blunder of the 20th Century. It made no sense whatever, unless he had been persuaded to issue it by FDR's Ambassador Joe Kennedy; "draw a line in the sand now for Hitler, and if a war results you can count on American help again." All the more cunning, in that Kennedy was personally in favor of accommodating and appeasing Hitler - or so he said.
 
I've long suspected that such a conversation took place, but records of it don't exist - until last year, when belated publication of a book by former President Hoover reports that he knew of it.
 
Thus, the Feds took Britain's place as World Leader not only by timing support so cleverly as to "rescue" it at relatively low cost, in WW-II they also triggered the whole conflict in the first place. This is what "statesmanship" is all about. WW-II looked like a war on Japan, Germany and Italy; it was actually a war on Britain. The surrender took place in 1944 in New Hampshire, when the dollar replaced the pound.
 
The cost was a mere 80 million lives, more or less.
 

KenK's picture

Paul,
As soon as Poland entered NATO England, and all its member state signatories, in effect, gave her war guarantees. So there's that.

A lot of us were quite strident in our opposition to American military involvement in Libya. Obama jumped in anyhow. All my e-mails and letters to Congress and the media in opposition notwithstanding too. Myself and like-mined persons were the ones "hooted down".

War amongst ourselves is another thing. Can't say.

Paul's picture

Again, agreeing with what I said: brush wars continue, no major mobilization for external war, internal war or revolution the only serious possibility.

Glock27's picture

Guerrilla warfare I feel is the event. Power grids knocked out, food supplies halted, fuel supplies cease,internal snatch and grab, local governments setting up boards of power.(I spoke with one elderly gentelman, now gone, who told me that the county came around to their place and took the two pigs his dad was raising for their food and they were left with nothing. They were told they had too much to eat while others were starving. What could he do?

Maybe not a wwIII but little explosions all over taking away the people who could best help defend us here from the "Road Warriors" or "Jehrimiah" with Denzel Washington. In part Paul I believe you are correct but also in part I believe you are wrong. It appears as if you have been lead into a singular focus of war and forgot about the internal struggle. Once [o]bama signs the UN global gun control, agenda 21 and the disabled act I see the real possibility of internal breakout and I don't care how much gold you have you won't give up a loaf of bread for a coin worth $3000.

No. Maybe WWIII is not coming but internal strife, civil war is squeeking around the corner, major reason I am taking a firearm combat training class this weekend. My birthday present.

Paul's picture

"Maybe WWIII is not coming but internal strife, civil war is squeeking around the corner..."

Hmm, I thought I said just that.