The Worst Mistake in US History

undefined

The worst mistake in US history was the conversion after World War II of the US government from a constitutional, limited-government republic to a national-security state. Nothing has done more to warp and distort the conscience, principles, and values of the American people, including those who serve in the US military.

A good example of how the national-security state has adversely affected the thinking of US soldiers was reflected in an op-ed entitled “What We’re Fighting For” that appeared in the February 10, 2017, issue of the New York Times. Authored by an Iraq War veteran named Phil Klay, the article demonstrates perfectly what the national-security state has done to soldiers and others and why it is so imperative for the American people to restore a constitutional republic to our land.

-----------------------------------------------------
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal

-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)

Klay begins his op-ed by extolling the exploits of another US Marine, First Lt. Brian Chontosh, who, displaying great bravery, succeeded in killing approximately two dozen Iraqis in a fierce firefight during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq. Klay writes:

When I was a new Marine, just entering the Corps, this story from the Iraq invasion defined heroism for me. It’s a perfect image of war for inspiring new officer candidates, right in line with youthful notions of what war is and what kind of courage it takes — physical courage, full stop.

Klay then proceeds to tell a story about an event he witnessed when he was deployed to Iraq in 2007. After doctors failed to save the life of a Marine who had been shot by an Iraqi sniper, those same doctors proceeded to treat and save the life of the sniper, who himself had been shot by US troops. Klay used the story to point out the virtuous manner in which US forces carried out their military mission in Iraq.

Well, except perhaps, Klay observes, for Abu Ghraib, the Iraqi prison in which Saddam Hussein’s government had tortured and abused countless Iraqis and which the US military turned into its own torture and abuse center for Iraqis captured during the 2003 US invasion of the country. Klay tells the story of a defense contractor named Eric Fair, who tortured an Iraqi prisoner into divulging information about a car-bomb factory. Encouraged by that successful use of torture, Fair proceeded to employ it against many other Iraqis, none of whom had any incriminating evidence to provide.

Klay points out that both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were major turning points in the Iraq War because prisoner abuse at both camps became a driving force for Iraqis to join the insurgency in Iraq. Thus, while Fair may have saved lives through his successful use of torture, he and other US personnel who tortured and abused people at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay may well have cost the lives of many more US soldiers in the long term.

Klay, however, suggests that none of that was really Fair’s fault. While he might have crossed some moral lines, everything he did, Klay suggests, was in accordance with legal rules and regulations. Klay writes:

And Eric did what our nation asked of him, used techniques that were vetted and approved and passed down to intelligence operatives and contractors like himself. Lawyers at the highest levels of government had been consulted, asked to bring us to the furthest edge of what the law might allow. To do what it takes, regardless of whether such actions will secure the “attachment of all good men,” or live up to that oath we swear to support and defend the Constitution.

Klay refers to the oath that US soldiers take to support and defend the Constitution. Clearly patting himself and other members of the US military on the back, he says US soldiers fight with honor to defend a “set of principles” that are reflected in the Constitution and that define America.

It would be difficult to find a better example of a life of the lie than that of Phil Klay. He provides an absolutely perfect demonstration of what a national-security state does to soldiers’ minds and why the Founding Fathers were so opposed to that type of governmental structure.

The rights of invaders

Notice one big omission from Klay’s self-aggrandizing article: Iraq never attacked the United States or even threatened to do so. Instead, it was the U.S government, operating through its troops, that was the aggressor nation in the Iraq War. Wars of aggression — i.e., attacking, invading, and occupying other countries — were among the crimes of which the defendants at Nuremburg were convicted.

It is absolutely fascinating that that critically important point seems to escape Klay so completely. It’s as if it just doesn’t exist or just doesn’t count. His mindset simply begins with the fact that US troops are engaged in war and then it proceeds from there to focus on the courage and humanity of the troops, how their bravery in battle inspired him, and how they treated the enemy humanely. It never occurs to him to ask the vital question: Did US troops have any legal or moral right to be in Iraq and to kill anyone there, including Iraqi soldiers, insurgents, civilians, and civil servants working for the Iraqi government?

Many years ago, I posed a question about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq to a libertarian friend of mine who was a Catholic priest. I asked him, If a US soldier is placed in Iraq in a kill-or-be-killed situation, does he have a right to fire back at an Iraqi who is shooting at him?

My friend’s answer was unequivocal: Absolutely not, he responded. Since he has no legitimate right to be in Iraq, given that he is part of the aggressor force that initiated the war, under God’s laws he cannot kill anyone, not even by convincing himself that he is only acting in “self-defense.”

I responded, “Are you saying that his only choice is to run away or permit himself to be killed”? He responded, “That is precisely what I am saying. Under the laws of God, he cannot kill anyone in Iraq because he has no right to be there.”

Suppose a burglar enters a person’s home in the dead of night. The homeowner wakes up, discovers the intruder, and begins firing at him. The burglar fires back and kills the homeowner.

The burglar appears in court and explains that he never had any intention of killing the homeowner and that he was simply firing back in self-defense. He might even explain to the judge how bravely he reacted under fire and detail the clever manner in which he outmaneuvered and shot the homeowner.

The judge, however, would reject any claim of self-defense on the part of the burglar. Why? Because the burglar had no right to be in the homeowner’s house. Like the US soldier in Iraq, when the homeowner began firing the burglar had only two legal and moral options: run away or be killed.

That’s what my Catholic priest friend was pointing out about US soldiers in Iraq. They had no right to be there. They invaded a poor, Third World country whose government had never attacked the United States and they were killing, torturing, and abusing people whom they had no right to kill, torture, or abuse.

That’s what Klay as well as most other members of the US military and, for that matter, many Americans still don’t get: that the Iraqi people were the ones who wielded the right of self-defense against an illegal invasion by a foreign power and that US forces, as the aggressor power in the war, had no legal or moral right to kill any Iraqi, not even in “self-defense.”

Klay waxes eloquent about the US Constitution and the oath that soldiers take to support and defend it, but it’s really just another perfect demonstration of the life of the lie that he and so many other US soldiers live. The reality is that when US soldiers vow to support and defend the Constitution, as a practical matter they are vowing to loyally obey the orders and commands of the president, who is their military commander in chief.

There is no better example of this phenomenon than what happened in Iraq. The US. Constitution is clear: The president is prohibited from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. No declaration, no war. Every US soldier ordered to invade Iraq knew that or should have known that.

Everyone, including the troops, also knew that Congress had not declared war on Iraq. Yet, not a single soldier supported or defended the Constitution by refusing George Bush’s order to attack and invade Iraq. Every one of them loyally obeyed his order to attack and invade, knowing full well that it would mean killing people in Iraq — killing people who had never attacked the United States. And they all convinced themselves that by following the president’s orders to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis, they were supporting and defending the Constitution.

How do US soldiers reconcile that? They convince themselves that they are supporting and defending the Constitution by obeying the orders of the president, who has been democratically elected by the citizenry. It’s not their job, they tell themselves, to determine what is constitutional and what isn’t. Their job, they believe, is simply to do what the president, operating through his subordinates, orders them to do. In their minds, they are supporting and defending the Constitution whenever they loyally and obediently carry out the orders of the president.

That means, then, that the standing army is nothing more than the president’s private army. As a practical matter, soldiers are going to do whatever they are ordered to do. If they don’t, they are quickly shot or simply replaced, which provides a good incentive for others to do as they are told. That’s why soldiers invaded Iraq, which had never attacked the United States, and killed people who were defending their country against an unlawful invasion. That’s also why soldiers and defense contractors tortured and abused people at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. They all believed they were carrying out the orders of their superiors, from the president on down, and that they were supporting and defending the Constitution in the process.

As people throughout history have learned, that is also why a standing army constitutes such a grave threat to the freedom and well-being of the citizenry. It is the means by which a tyrant imposes and enforces his will on the citizenry. Just ask the people of Chile, where the troops of a military regime installed into power by the US national-security establishment rounded up tens of thousands of innocent people and incarcerated, tortured, raped, abused, or executed them, all without due process of law and with the support of the US government.

Prior to the invasion of Iraq, I read that some Catholic soldiers were deeply troubled by the prospect of killing people in a war that the US government was initiating. I was stunned to read that a US military chaplain told them that they had the right under God’s laws to obey the president’s order to invade Iraq and kill Iraqis. God would not hold it against them, he said, if they killed people in the process of following orders.

Really? Are God’s laws really nullified by the orders of a government’s military commander? If that were the case, don’t you think God’s commandment would have read: “Thou shalt not kill, unless your ruler orders you to do so in a war of aggression against another nation”?

To this day, there are those who claim that George W. Bush simply made an honest mistake in claiming that Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s dictator, was maintaining weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and that US soldiers were justified in trusting him by loyally obeying his orders to invade and occupy Iraq to “disarm Saddam.”

They ignore three important points: it was a distinct possibility that Bush and his people were simply lying. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time that a president had lied in order to garner support for a war. Lyndon Johnson’s lies regarding a supposed North Vietnamese attack on US warships in the Gulf of Tonkin in Vietnam come to mind. Two, Bush didn’t secure the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war, most likely because he knew that congressional hearings on the issue would expose his WMD scare for the lie it was. And three, only the UN, not the US government, was entitled to enforce its resolutions regarding Iraq’s WMDs.

Moreover, the circumstantial evidence establishes that Bush was lying and that the WMD scare was entirely bogus. Many people forget that throughout the 1990s the US government was hell-bent on regime change in Iraq. That’s what the brutal sanctions were all about, which contributed to the deaths of half a million Iraqi children. When US Ambassador to the United Nations Madeleine Albright was asked on Sixty Minutes whether the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions were “worth it,” she responded that such deaths were “worth it.” By “it,” she was referring to regime change.

That desire for regime change in Iraq grew with each passing year in the 1990s, both among liberals and conservatives. Demands were ever growing to get rid of Saddam. Therefore, when Bush started coming up with his WMD scare after the 9/11 attacks, everyone should have been wary because it had all the earmarks of an excuse to invade Iraq after more than 10 years of sanctions had failed to achieve the job.

The best circumstantial evidence that Bush lied about the WMD scare appeared after it was determined that there were no WMDs in Iraq. At that point, if Bush had been telling the truth, he could have said, “I’m very sorry. I have made a grave mistake and my army has killed multitudes of people as a consequence of my mistake. I am hereby ordering all US troops home and I hereby announce my resignation as president.”

Bush didn’t do that. In fact, he expressed not one iota of remorse or regret over the loss of life for what supposedly had been the result of a mistake. He knew that he had achieved what the US national-security state had been trying to achieve for more than a decade with its brutal sanctions — regime change in Iraq — and he had used the bogus WMD scare to garner support for his invasion. And significantly, the troops were kept occupying Iraq for several more years, during which they killed more tens of thousands of Iraqis.

One thing is for sure: By the time Phil Klay arrived in Iraq in 2007, he knew full well that there had been no WMDs in Iraq. He also knew that Iraq had never attacked the United States. By that time, he knew full well that the US government had invaded a country under false or, at the very least, mistaken pretenses. He knew there had been no congressional declaration of war. He knew that there was no legal or moral foundation for a military occupation that was continuing to kill people in an impoverished Third World country whose worst “crime” was simply trying to rid their country of an illegal occupier.

Yet, reinforced by people who were thanking them for “their service in Iraq,” Klay, like other US troops, convinced himself that their “service” in Iraq was a grand and glorious sacrifice for his nation, that they were defending Americans’ rights and freedoms, and that they were keeping us safe. It was a classic life of the lie because our nation, our rights and freedoms, and our safety were never threatened by anyone in Iraq, including the millions of Iraqis who were killed, maimed, injured, tortured, abused, or exiled, or whose homes, businesses, or infrastructure were destroyed by bombs, missiles, bullets, and tanks.

In fact, the entity that actually threatened the rights and freedoms of the American people was the US government, given the totalitarian-like powers that it assumed as part of its effort to keep us safe from the enemies its interventionist policies were producing. Coming to mind are the totalitarian-like power to assassinate Americans, secret mass surveillance, and the incarceration and torture of American citizens as suspected terrorists — all without due process of law and without trial by jury.

This is what a national-security state does to people — it warps, damages, or destroys their conscience, principles, and values; induces them to subscribe to false bromides; and nurtures all sorts of mental contortions to enable people to avoid confronting reality.

Many years after Brian Chontosh’s exploits in Iraq, Phil Klay was surprised to learn that Chontosh was experiencing some ambivalence about what he had done. “It’s ugly, it’s violent, it’s disgusting. I wish it wasn’t part of what we had to do,” Chontosh later wrote.

Perhaps that’s because conscience was beginning to stir within him. That’s a good sign. Maybe it will begin to stir in Phil Klay too. And other members of the military as well.

Reprinted with permission from the Future of Freedom Foundation.

 

33
Leave a Reply

avatar
  Subscribe  
Notify of
Robert Gore

That was an outstanding article.

Iska Waran
Iska Waran

From the title, I thought it was going to be “we should have picked our own cotton”.

Dutchman
Dutchman

Go Raytheon / Go General Dynamics / Go Electric Boat / Go Martin – made a shitload of money writing software for these guys.

Vodka
Vodka

Perhaps a MIC index fund is the only sure investment anymore.

I view the current U.S. military leadership as Barney Fife in drag who is experiencing a steroid-induced rage.

I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Anonymous
Anonymous

You don’t need an index. They are all diversified and have their hand in every project. Pentagon ensures the $ gets spread around to all. Look at their charts …

rhs jr
rhs jr

Thank you for the insight. My generation was ordered to save Vietnam by destroying it. Communist Russia could not be reformed; it collapsed. Unfortunately, the Evil Criminal ZOG Empire can’t be reformed by American Voters (not in a hundred years even if we had 80% of our citizens as enlightened as you). The ZOG must and will be destroyed by the BRICs et all by destroying the Fiat Dollar and by God with Natural Disasters.

xrugger

You know RH, I’ve read comments by you on several different threads over the past couple of days and I must say you are a master at offering highly nuanced explanations for very complex and thorny issues. Hardly ever do you devolve into formulaic, hackneyed, simplistic verbiage when offering up your varied insights about the underlying causes of the troubles that afflict the world in general and the U.S. in particular. The arcane mysteries of the whys and wherefores of our current political and cultural decline are brilliantly illuminated by the blinding light of your wide-ranging intellect. The way you slice and dice the issues of the day without falling back on shopworn phraseology and frayed logic is wondrous to behold. You are truly a prophet of the mundane and the banality of your commentary is unsurpassed.

Well done oh tiresome and monotonous servant. I look forward with relish to yet more incisive explorations into the plethoric realms of your particularly unwavering brand of political punditry.

L’Chaim my friend

rhs jr
rhs jr

Sorry to agree Mr Xrugger, I’m not nearly as erudite as I must think I am, and as your perceptive pellucid praise elucidates. Please forgive me; I’ll try harder not to waste people’s time, Vaya con Dios sincere friend.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty

I love Mr. Hornberger and nearly everything he has written, but “The worst mistake in US history was the conversion after World War II of the US government from a constitutional, limited-government republic to a national-security state.” The US government most certainly was NOT a constitutional, limited-government republic at the end of WWII. The Constitution was destroyed by Abraham Lincoln and his war to suppress peaceful secession, was undermined by Wilson in handing over all the wealth to the criminal Federal Reserve and the imposition of an income tax, and by FDR, who turned the nation into a fascist economy of unlimited government power during his 3+ terms in office (truly begun under Hoover following the crash).

Aside from that clarification, great article.

Subwo
Subwo

Hmm, the Act of 1871 changed our constitution and with it our country to a corporation according to this explanation of changing one word in the preamble “for” to “of”. The United States isn’t a Country-It’s a Corporation by Lisa Guilani

http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/us_corporation.htm

DRUD
DRUD

You forgot Wilson forcing the US into WWI when it could have been avoided.

MrLiberty
MrLiberty

I didn’t forget that, but there was an honest declaration of war by our congress. Indeed, it came after Wilson was violating the neutrality agreement by shipping arms to Britain on ships like the ill-fated Lusitania, but at least he didn’t sent troops into a war in violation of the Constitution as every president from Truman on has done. Indeed, our entry into WW1 set the stage for WW2, possibly the fall of Russia to the Communists, the complete and total mess that is the Middle East, and so much more, but I wanted to focus just on the issues of “limited constitutional republic” that Mr. Hornberger incorrectly claimed we still were at the end of WW2.

CCRider
CCRider

Yes. Terrific piece. But the biggest mistake was the sabotaging of the Articles of Confederation to put in place the constitution. A Hamilton/bankster coup.

Vixen Vic
Vixen Vic

I totally agree with that, CCRider.

Brian
Brian

It bothers me every time someone thanks me for my service.

A young 18 year old enlisting doesn’t understand the principles the author here is explaining because real history and civics is no longer taught.

Now you place them in boot where their individuality is crushed and then rebuilt into the mold they want. Add group think and an echo chamber, and you can see how it’s done.

Personally it took me a full 8 years after my EOAS before I woke up to the horrible truth. Perhaps this is why suicide is so prevalent in vets? It shook me to my core, when that realization sunk in and the awakening began.

TampaRed
TampaRed

if i’m not mistaken,the vet suicide rate is no higher then the general public–

Brian
Brian

I’m no expert, but a casual perusing of google leads one to believe there is a significant difference between vets v. general population suicide rates….and the odds are not in the vets favor.

Think about all the programming one gets in the military, then after you’re out; you find out the majority of it was bullshit. Trust me, it is not a pleasant feeling to have what you believe is a solid foundation turn to shit. Generally those who can’t cope may turn to off’ing themselves. In my case, after the emotion/anger wore off, it focused me like a laser on finding out WTF happened.

https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2016/07/07/new-va-study-finds-20-veterans-commit-suicide-each-day/

Mike
Mike

I am not sure if we have been a legal war since WW2 and don’t believe we have been in a moral one. Invading Iraq may have been the biggest blunder in our history; if we would mind our own business and keep out of the affairs of others the world would be better off but sadly war has been big business for a long time.

TampaRed
TampaRed

this was mostly a bs article–
though there were not many found,wmd s were found in iraq–
my stepson was in the marines,and several times during his tour(06/07) his unit was pulled out of combat and used for security for weapons inspectors who were raiding installations that were suspected to have wmd s-

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren

What difference does it make if they had WMDs? I love how the elitists try to box in the discussion. They probably did have them —at least at some point and we probably gave them the weapons. The question is not whether Iraq had WMDs, but rather whether they had the ability, means and intention to use them against the USA. Was there are clear and present danger to the USA? This can not honestly be answered positively and therefore the war was unjust. The same goes for North Korea, Iran and any other boogeyman enemy conjured by the war lords.

TampaRed
TampaRed

in hindsight,i wish we had not gone in to iraq.
however,you said did they have the ability,means,intention to use them against us.
i do not know but saddam had the motivation to use them so should we wait until they had the ability and means?

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren

Yes; there is way too much speculation otherwise. Lots of countries have the ability and means to strike the US with WMDs. I think you would have to be 100% certain that they intend to carry out a strike before striking yourself.

And Saddam would not have had any motivation to harm the US if we did not get involved 10 years earlier. For goodness sake, he was another one of those US friendly dictators before that. Didn’t we give him weapons when he invaded Iran?

TampaRed
TampaRed

last part 1st-we may or may not have been correct in going in to kuwait/iraq in 90/91,but it was irrelevant in 2003–
do you remember after bush sr left office and was in kuwait,saddam tried to have him killed?that was an act of war that clinton did nothing about–
100% certainty only comes after launch or detonation,wanna re-think that?

n korea-the situation needs to change–china needs to deal w/nk or we make china feel economic pain–we still hold the upper hand w/the chicoms for the present,though we may not always–

back to iraq-i will concede that bush was determined to go in,even b4 he was elected–
during prez election season,cspan often runs old election debates–back in 08 or 12,i was flipping channels and one of the bush/gore debates was on so i watched 4 a few minutes-
watching it after the fact i said,”damn,he was determined to go in even back then.”

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren

Why would Saddam try to kill Bush 1 if the first gulf war had not taken place? The first gulf war was just as unjust as the 2nd. There was no clear and present danger to the US therefore there should have been no war.

“Do not fire until fired upon” is an age old rule of engagement that assures justified retaliation. It takes balls to follow, but is not an age old maxim for no reason.

Grog
Grog

“A standing army is like a standing member. It’s an excellent assurance of domestic tranquility, but a dangerous temptation to foreign adventure. ”
Elbridge Gerry

BUCKHED
BUCKHED

Saddam H was an enigma…he would have used WMD’s against Israel one day hence the development of the Super Gun via Project Babylon. Of course the Israelis would probably have killed him first .
Our invasion had jack to do with WMD’s and everything to do with Saddam’s insistence on only allowing Euro’s for the purchase of Iraqi oil.

Washington and Eisenhower warned us in their farewell addresses….we were too busy to notice…thanks Greatest Generation.

War is racket …always will be .

Mercy Otis Warren
Mercy Otis Warren

Whether or not Saddam was going to strike Israel is irrelevant to whether or not he posed a clear and present danger to the US. He did not. I think you are correct though that the war was fought over the Petro-dollar. WMDs were nothing more than a smoke screen.

overthecliff
overthecliff

Well, . I am convinced. At last I’e seen the light concerning our treatment of mohammedans. Thanks to the truth and light coming from the New York Times. They wouldn’t lie to us.

Discover more from The Burning Platform

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading