#478 – Scott Horton: The Case Against War and the Military Industrial Complex

Scott Horton, director of the Libertarian Institute and host of The Scott Horton Show, critiques U.S. foreign policy, particularly the military-industrial complex and its consequences. He emphasizes the need for a multipolar world where nations cooperate and compete, highlighting the importance of understanding global markets for investment decisions. Horton describes the wars on terror as a dark chapter in American history, revealing the military-industrial complex's role in misleading the public. He cites the Cost of War Project, estimating nearly 940,000 direct deaths and up to 3.8 million indirect deaths, with a financial toll of $8 trillion. The human cost in Afghanistan is stark, with food insecurity and poverty levels drastically increasing. Horton notes the psychological toll on American servicemen, with 30,000 suicides reported since the wars began, and critiques the mental health support provided to veterans.

Horton reflects on the limited societal benefits from military actions, pointing out that advancements in prosthetic limbs are among the few positives. He critiques the military-industrial complex for its failures and the lack of tangible benefits for society. He transitions to historical context, discussing U.S. military involvement post-Vietnam War, including Nixon's strategy to bolster the military-industrial complex through arms sales to Iran. Horton outlines the CIA's role in the 1953 coup that reinstated the Shah and the subsequent instability leading to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. He questions the motivations behind regime change efforts, pondering whether they stem from incompetence or malevolence.

The conversation explores public choice theory, highlighting how national interests are often shaped by the personal agendas of decision-makers rather than the collective good. Daniel Ellsberg exemplifies this by discussing his role in prioritizing his boss's image over personal beliefs. The military's self-perpetuating nature is critiqued, likened to a "self-licking ice cream cone," where chaos is both created and managed by the same entities. After the Afghan war, military officers expressed a desire to engage in new conflicts, indicating a focus on maintaining global presence rather than addressing local needs.

The significance of whistleblowers, particularly Ellsberg, is emphasized. Known for leaking the Pentagon Papers, Ellsberg's moral stance is highlighted, including his refusal to work on the H-bomb assembly line. The Pentagon Papers revealed the deception surrounding the Vietnam War, showing that U.S. officials were aware of the unwinnable nature of the conflict. The conversation draws parallels between U.S. actions in Vietnam and later interventions, such as in Afghanistan, emphasizing the continuous lies from leaders like LBJ about the war's progress.

The podcast discusses U.S. involvement in Iran, highlighting how the U.S. aided the rise of the Ayatollah during the 1979 revolution and subsequent hostage crisis. The CIA's role in grooming Saddam since the 1950s is examined, revealing the irony of U.S. support for him during the Iran-Iraq War. The discussion also covers U.S. support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, initiated by President Jimmy Carter to provoke Soviet intervention, which contributed to the Soviet invasion later that year.

The conversation connects these events to broader U.S. foreign policy, particularly the impact of the Vietnam War on American military engagement. The reluctance to engage in conflicts, termed "Vietnam syndrome," influenced strategies devised by Zbigniew Brzezinski to bait the Soviets into a quagmire in Afghanistan. The potential consequences of this strategy included increased hawkish sentiment in the U.S. regarding Iran and the risk of direct confrontation with the Soviets.

The podcast addresses the complexities of U.S.-Iran relations, acknowledging Iran's historical animosity towards the U.S. while recognizing the motivations behind it, including the 1953 coup that reinstated the Shah. The implications of the Carter Doctrine are discussed, particularly how it may have emboldened Saddam Hussein to invade Iran. The aftermath of the Iran-Iraq War saw Saddam struggling with war debts, exacerbated by low oil prices and accusations against Kuwait for slant drilling.

The conversation critiques the portrayal of Saddam Hussein as a significant threat, with claims of his intentions to invade Saudi Arabia deemed fabricated. Evidence contradicting this narrative was largely ignored by major news outlets. The discussion delves into the justifications for the Iraq Wars, emphasizing that Saddam Hussein's minimal surrender demands were aimed at preserving his image, yet the U.S. preferred to go to war instead of allowing him to surrender.

Critique of the U.S. as a global police force suggests it is more about power than protection. The conversation reflects on the post-Cold War era, where significant military cuts and nuclear reductions were made without aligning with neoconservative ideologies. The relationship between Israel and Iran during the Iran-Iraq War is explored, revealing a covert alliance despite public hostility.

The podcast critiques the neoconservative movement's role in advocating for intervention during the Iraq War, with many prominent hawks supporting military action. The motivations for U.S. involvement in Kuwait are questioned, suggesting that American interests were not as directly tied to Kuwait as those of Britain. The Bush administration aimed to overcome the "Vietnam syndrome" by presenting a quick victory in the Gulf War.

The conversation highlights the neoconservative agenda's alignment with Zionism, emphasizing the influence of the Israel lobby in American politics. The speaker critiques the "clean break" strategy, arguing it was flawed and led to the rise of Shiite power in Iraq post-invasion. The discussion also touches on U.S. support for the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, which inadvertently contributed to the rise of Al-Qaeda.

The conversation critiques the portrayal of al-Qaeda in a Foreign Affairs article, suggesting a narrative shift that views them more favorably. The speaker also addresses U.S. military involvement in Iraq under Obama, particularly the support of Iranian forces against ISIS. The speaker concludes with a commentary on Saudi Arabia's military actions in Yemen, backed by the U.S. to strengthen the Saudi royal family's power.

The podcast conversation begins with a critical examination of the war in Yemen, described as genocidal against civilians. It transitions to Somalia, identified as the longest war in American history, initiated by George W. Bush. The speaker emphasizes that U.S. military actions have contributed to instability in various regions, including Somalia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

The discussion critiques Barack Obama's drone strikes in Somalia, which resulted in civilian casualties, and highlights Donald Trump's military strategy, which involved devolving decision-making authority and changing rules of engagement. The current status of Somalia remains dire, with a failing government unable to control the Al-Shabaab insurgency.

The conversation shifts to the Iraq Wars, detailing the timeline and impact of each conflict, including Iraq War III, launched by Obama in 2014. Concerns about a potential Iraq War IV are raised, particularly regarding renewed conflict against Shiite forces and the risk of U.S. alignment with Israel against Iran. The conversation concludes with a focus on Israel's obsession with Iran, questioning the motivations behind maintaining high tensions rather than seeking regime change.

The speaker critiques U.S. foreign policy, particularly regarding North Korea, suggesting that offering aid could have mitigated nuclear proliferation. They reflect on past decisions that may have obstructed better diplomatic outcomes. The conversation addresses the complexities of U.S. military involvement in Iran, emphasizing that airstrikes alone cannot lead to regime change without ground forces.

The speaker critiques the "axis of evil" narrative, noting the lack of genuine alliances among the leaders involved. The conversation briefly touches on the Israel-Palestine situation, recommending further resources for understanding its complexities. The speaker emphasizes the importance of being well-informed and critiques the indifference to Palestinian suffering, likening it to historical atrocities.

The speaker discusses the orders given to the officer corps regarding Israel's military actions, condemning the killing of civilians, particularly children and pregnant women, labeling it as genocide. The speaker argues that Israel's bombing of essential infrastructure reflects an intent to systematically dismantle Palestine. They express outrage over the indifference to Palestinian suffering, emphasizing the threat posed by Bin Ladenite terrorism and the need for anti-war advocacy.

The conversation highlights the distinction between the Israeli government and its people, as well as between Hamas and the Palestinian population. The speaker critiques Netanyahu's policies for resulting in significant civilian casualties and argues that he has strategically maintained division among Palestinians to justify the lack of peace negotiations. The humanitarian crisis in Gaza is described as dire, with estimates of around 100,000 Palestinian deaths and horrific living conditions.

The speaker critiques the narrative that the disengagement from Gaza was a gift to Palestinians, arguing it was a tactic to weaken and divide them. They draw parallels between the treatment of Gaza and historical events, emphasizing the cognitive dissonance in American perceptions of the situation. The speaker concludes with a call for the U.S. government to cease its support for Israel, emphasizing the need for a shift in perspective regarding U.S. involvement in the Middle East.