| Leaders Don't Kill
People... By Michael Boldin
03/20/07 "ICH"
-- -- -If I have my facts straight, George W. Bush has never
killed a single person in his life. All the torture and death
that people attribute to him has been carried out by people who
were "only following orders."
Psychologically, I find this quite interesting. As a person,
it doesn't appear that Bush would or could hurt anyone,
especially not innocent people. But, as "commander-in-chief,"
he can order and oversee actions that result in the deaths of
tens of thousands of innocents without even batting an eye. A
friend and critic of mine believes that leaders such as Bush
assume full responsibility for the actions of a nation's
military. I strongly disagree.
We've all heard the excuses over and over again. The
soldiers aren't responsible because they're following orders.
The military isn't responsible because they have to obey the
civilian leadership. The President isn't responsible because he
was given bad intelligence. The intelligence agencies aren't
responsible because they had bad informants, and made the best
call they could under the circumstances. And, of course,
Congress isn't responsible either. Why not? I don't really
know. Maybe it's because they're utterly incompetent.
Seriously, though, we have a major problem here.
RESPONSIBILITY
So, who is responsible for the death and
destruction in Iraq?
Who? The pilots who dropped the bombs? The commanding
officers? The secretary of defense? The President? Or, as the
war hawks would like us to believe, is it the people defending
their homeland from invasion? If they'd just stop resisting.our
peace-loving, democracy-spreading military wouldn't have to
defend themselves and kill these people, right?
Who is responsible might not even matter,
because the truth is no one will be held
accountable, and there will be no trials or
prosecutions for the countless innocents that have been killed
in America's foreign wars. The result is that the politicians
are further emboldened to wage even more wars in the future.
STANDING ARMIES ARE DANGEROUS TO YOU
Historically, governments have misused standing armies in two
main ways, both of which inevitably result in tyranny for the
People. The first is to engage in foreign wars, which
invariably result in massive spending, which enables the
government to place a bigger and bigger tax burden on the
people. This was well-stated by James Madison, the "father of
the Constitution":
Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps,
the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops
the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from
these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and
taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under
the domination of the few.
Governments generally call for increased patriotism at home
while these foreign wars are being waged. The politicians
demand greater powers and reduced liberties for the people;
claiming that these moves will help bring peace. Explaining this
second way standing armies are misused, Madison continued:
In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive
is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors,
and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing
the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the
people.... [There is also an] inequality of fortunes, and
the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war,
and ... degeneracy of manners and of morals.... No nation
could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual
warfare.
The concept here is simple. Governments use their armies to
stir up, or even produce, enemies by meddling in the affairs of
people in different countries. Then, they attempt to scare
their own people with cries that the "enemy" is ready to invade,
and that war is absolutely necessary to stop these evil
killers. Once war breaks out, the government then demands
additional power over the people to supposedly "protect" them in
time of war.
Sound familiar?
WHERE THE REAL DANGER LIES
American history is filled with politicians who used foreign
adventures to boost their political standing at home. The war
in Iraq, now lasting over 15 years and Presidents from both
political parties, demonstrates why the Founding Fathers so
vehemently opposed standing armies.
The use of our military to invade nations or do "police
actions" in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, Serbia,
Vietnam, and elsewhere, is both unconstitutional and immoral.
The death toll resulting from this aggressive foreign policy has
become massive.
Ask yourself this. Is the Iraqi insurgent fighting in
Baghdad more threatening to you than warrantless spying or
massive war spending? Is al Qaeda more menacing than the
suspension of Habeas Corpus? Is the "terrorist" in Iraq a
greater danger to your freedom than all those politicians who
signed the Patriot Act without even reading it?
Just exactly who or what is
the greatest threat your rights?
To those not blinded by interest, the answer is clear. It's
not individuals like Clinton or Bush. It's not the military.
It's not the NSA, the Supreme Court, or Congress. The greatest
threat to your liberty is your own government; it's the system
which has allowed all this to happen! And, sadly, it's been
this way for many years.
But, the politicians couldn't get away with much if we didn't
give them the tools. The government couldn't grow in power
without the billions of dollars they take from us each year.
The politicians wouldn't be able to wage war without the massive
military machine which has become synonymous with American
foreign policy.
I say to you, look at who your leaders are, and ask yourself
if these people can be trusted with such power. Presidents such
as Truman, Bush, Johnson, and Clinton have used the military in
ways which have resulted in the deaths of millions. They used
the same standing army that people like George Washington and
Patrick Henry warned us against. Don't tell me that this
country needs such a military force. A national militia would
never have done such things.
SOLUTIONS
In contrast to this bloody mess, the founders envisioned a
society that would be protected by militias on the state level.
A national defense would only be put together when the nation
itself was directly threatened by invasion.
What's my suggestion? Well, I'm sure many of you won't like
it, but that's the way things go. I say let's get rid of the
whole damn military. Stop spending countless billions and
billions to maintain a global presence. Bring all the troops
home once and for all!
Just think, if the military was disbanded then there would be
no more overseas bases. There would be no more bombings of
faraway nations. There would be no more terrorists created by a
meddling foreign policy. There would be no more regime
changes. There would be no more foreign wars. There would be
no more war funding bills to debate. There would be no more use
of weapons like agent orange and depleted uranium. There would
be no more enemy combatants. There would be no more military
prisons. There would be no more collateral damage. And, most
importantly, the root of the problem would finally be smashed
into pieces; the treacherous policy of American interventionism.
Thus, there is only one solution to this grave danger to our
freedom and prosperity. We the People must act on the warnings
of the Founding Fathers against standing armies and foreign
entanglements. We must shut down the American military empire,
close every single overseas base, and bring all
the troops home. The troops would then be released into the
private sector, where they would be quite effective in leading
local militias to defend the nation in the highly unlikely event
of a foreign invasion.
REAL NATIONAL DEFENSE
Do I want a defenseless country? Absolutely not - I
want a defenseless government! I want a government that
doesn't have the power or the tools to wage anymore foreign
wars, and thus, one that doesn't have the excuse to take away
your liberty to "protect" you.
There is an alternative that one would call a real national
defense. This is one where the people themselves are
responsible for the defense of their country. The individual
American was considered to be so effective and important to the
defense of America that the Constitution specifically mentioned
it in the 2nd Amendment.
Those in power, and their followers, of course, would never
want this to become reality, though. They'll try to scare you
away from such a strong system of defense. They'll warn you of
all the great dangers that will "surely" come. But, don't
believe such things, for they are the lies of tyrants!
Here's one I've heard time and time again. "If we didn't
have the military, you'd be speaking German or Japanese right
now!" Don't make me laugh! The Japanese were able to pull off
one surprise attack by air, and the Germans
weren't even able to cross the English Channel, much less the
Atlantic Ocean!
So what would happen if another country ever
began preparing masses of ships and planes, and millions of
soldiers to invade the United States? The Founding Fathers gave
us the answer. Such an invading force would be met by the power
of tens of millions of free, well-armed American citizens who
would quickly rise to resist and defeat any such invasion.
Think it can't work? Think again. Invading and successfully
occupying nations with an armed population is a feat rarely
accomplished. The people of Afghanistan were able to drive out
the mighty Soviets, and just a small percentage of the Iraqi
people are currently making occupation untenable for the
mightiest military in the history of the world.
A NEW DIRECTION
What would we do about murderous foreign dictators? Yes, you
got it. The Founding Fathers gave us an answer to that as
well. First of all, the government would no longer force
you to give them any money. And more
importantly, the government would no longer have the ability to
go around looking for tyrants to destroy, and populations to
"save" through war. Instead of endless foreign entanglements,
we'd build the freest and most prosperous nation in history.
Of course, those Americans who would want to leave their
families and jobs to support revolutionary movements in other
parts of the world would always have the freedom to do so.
Thus, in determining our future, we have a clear choice.
Should we continue down the path we are on today? Should we
continue on this path of empire, with massive standing armies,
hundreds of overseas bases, foreign wars and sanctions? Should
we continue our foreign policy which creates hatred in millions
and millions of people; thus making you a target of their
retaliation? Should we continue down the path of ever-growing
taxes and regulations, as well as the endless loss of liberty
that always comes with empire?
Or, should we change direction? Should we take our nation
down the path that the Founder Fathers envisioned? Should we
create a society where government is strictly limited and
forbidden from invading foreign nations? Should we build a
society where freedom and prosperity reigns; a nation that would
serve as a model for the rest of the world? If we choose this
path, every person on earth would always know that there would
be at least one refuge for the oppressed, the
United States of America.
We can have something different, and I, for
one, choose the path of liberty.
by
Michael
Boldin, who is an outspoken critic of the American
political system. He is a senior editor and contributing
writer for
http://www.populistamerica.com. Michael welcomes
your feedback at
mboldin@populistamerica.com
Click here
to comment on this and other articles
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
