The Billo Battalion

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Bill O’Reilly is a warmonger. Nobody who has even occasionally watched him on Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor” can have any doubts about that. There are hardly any nations in the world where he has not urged American military intervention. Whether Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Mexico, or Russia, O’Reilly may not know all of the subtle geopolitical nuances, but he does know that he wants the American military to take swift and violent action. The United States is currently involved in military action in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia. The United States has the largest and most powerful military in the world by far. The United States has nearly 1.5 million active military personnel. It has an arsenal of thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, and fighter jets. The United States Navy has 10 aircraft carriers, 72 submarines, and 62 destroyers. The Islamic State has perhaps 30,000 fighters. The Islamic State has few heavy weapons, no air force, and no navy. Yet somehow this insurgent group based in Syria and Iraq has O’Reilly saber rattling on a whole new level. News that the United States planned to spend more than $500 million to arm and train “moderate” Syrian rebels caused O’Reilly to think outside of his traditionalist box. Instead of suggesting something sane such as refraining from intervening in Syria and Iraq’s civil wars, O’Reilly came up with a very different and very dubious idea.

O’Reilly has recently outlined a plan for a mercenary army of English-speaking “elite fighters” who would be “well paid and well trained.” These mercenaries—who would number 25,000—would be trained in the United States by American Special Forces. Their mission would be to “defeat terrorists all over the world.” This “anti-terror army” would be led by United States and NATO commanders and would follow American military rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions. The “anti-terror army” would be paid for by nations in a coalition that want “intelligence and protection from the U.S.A. and NATO.” According to O’Reilly: “If you don’t pay, you get no help.” Active military personnel—including members of the United States armed forces—would not be eligible to serve in the “anti-terror army.”

The problems with O’Reilly’s proposal are legion. However, here is a short list of the most serious difficulties with the “Billo Battalion.”

1.  Placing this mercenary army outside of the United States armed forces raises questions about how it will function under the Constitution. Would the President or NATO be able to deploy it without authorization from Congress? Would Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution apply or not? This has the potential of giving an already Caesarian Imperial President even greater power.

2. It is ridiculous to believe that any nations in the coalition that O’Reilly imagines will actually pay for the services of the mercenary army. Nations such as Saudi Arabia will continue to assume that the United States will grant it military assistance as required because the precedent has already been set. The Saudis will naturally assume that—like during the Gulf War—when it needs military help, the United States will grant it no questions asked because of American need for oil. Other nations such as Iraq may be unable to pay for such assistance due to poor economies or anti-American public sentiment which could foment a rebellion. At best, this mercenary army would become yet another expensive boondoggle for the American taxpayer.

3. If no active military personnel are eligible to serve in the “anti-terror army,” then where will it find its members? It will either be left with inept fighters, rogues, or foreign terrorists. Or it may lead to the best-trained members of the United States military and allied militaries leaving the service in order to become mercenaries. And what will this do to morale in the United States military? Will brave and selfless American military personnel be pleased that there are these dubious mercenaries earning far more money than they do? American soldiers who have been  grievously wounded serving their country are not getting proper care through VA hospitals. An increasing number of military families are reliant upon food stamps. How would this be fair? Would the American people put up with it? 

4. Why assume that foreign mercenaries will bravely fight against terrorists if things become intense? Shiite soldiers in Iraq simply walked away rather than risk their lives protecting Sunni or Kurd communities against Islamic State insurgents. 

5. Why assume that mercenaries will be likely to follow United States rules of engagement or the Geneva Conventions? Mercenaries, such as those from the Academi (the company formerly known as Blackwater) have been accused of all manner of atrocities. So have UN peacekeepers. Even if commanded by capable American or NATO commanders, how can it be certain that these mercenaries will not end up being a real life version of Kurtz’s army from Apocalypse Now?

6. A potentially volatile and likely unconstitutional group of fighters is almost certainly going to create blowback. Innocent civilians will inevitably be killed. Even if such collateral damage is unintentional and even if these mercenaries perform as admirably as American soldiers do, it is still likely to inspire suspicion and hatred among the populace in areas where this “anti-terror army” performs its deadly missions. The last thing that the American people needs is its government going out of its way to create even more enemies who wish to commit terrorist attacks.

7. How can it be guaranteed that some future Commander-in-Chief would not use this “anti-terror” army against the American people? Senator Harry Reid has called supporters of Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy “domestic terrorists.” If some future President decides that the Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, PETA, or some other group of Americans who are exercising their First Amendment rights are terrorists, what will stop him or her from employing this “anti-terror” army against these “domestic terrorists?” It is unlikely that American soldiers will fire upon their fellow citizens. However, foreign mercenaries will have few qualms about firing into crowds of American citizens if ordered to do so. Is giving an already tyrannical government a group of vicious Hessians to use against the American people really a good idea?

It is important to Bill O’Reilly that the United States and its President be macho. His self-esteem is apparently so low that he needs the government to knock down any other nation or group that even looks at the nation funny. Such out of control militarism has consequences. It costs blood and treasure, and it creates blowback. O’Reilly’s mercenary army is an even worse idea than those that the host usually has. 

(For a much more detailed critique of the arguments and worldview of Bill O’Reilly, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

How US Foreign Policy Encourages Nuclear Proliferation

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

According to South Korean officials, North Korea is developing new missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. These missiles, which North Korea has allegedly been test-firing since August, are said to have a range of 200 kilometers and can carry tactical nuclear weapons. Given how unstable the leadership in North Korea has traditionally been—Kim Jong un seems like a chip off the old block—this is troublesome. While the United States obsesses over groups like ISIS—which do not even have enough fighters to fill the typical major league baseball stadium—North Korea continues to become a real danger. It would not take much to set off a war between North and South Korea, and this could quickly turn into a nuclear version of World War I with the United States, NATO, China, and Russia being sucked into the apocalyptic vortex.

An important issue to consider is why nations like North Korea feel it is necessary to develop nuclear weapons. What is the incentive for North Korea, Iran, etc.? The answer is simple. The United States creates an intense and perverse incentive for allegedly “rogue” nations to seek nuclear weapons. Iraq and Afghanistan do not possess nuclear weapons. Because of this, the United States had no qualms about invading these nations, occupying them, and bringing about regime change. Iraq had not threatened the United States in any manner, so simply avoiding aggression is no guarantee that a nation will be safe from American military action.

In contrast, the United States avoided direct military confrontation with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Similarly, while the United States engaged in military action against China during the Korean War, after China developed nuclear weapons, the United States never again threatened it. And while the United States invaded Afghanistan, it did not invade Pakistan—where Osama bin Laden actually was hiding. Why? Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal. So what incentive do nations like North Korea, Iran, or any other nation that is not an American ally have not to develop nuclear weapons?

Neoconservative wars of aggression are expensive. While defense contractors and war profiteers such as Halliburton benefit when the United States turns nations into parking lots and then attempts to rebuild them, American taxpayers certainly do not. And neither do American servicemen who are killed or seriously wounded in action. In addition, these fascistic and imperialistic policies encourage nuclear proliferation.

Totalitarian collectivist nations like Iran typically have ruthless and paranoid leaders. There is nothing quite like a legitimate existential threat to make such despots even more desperate. Needlessly forcing these nations to seek nuclear weapons is foolhardy. Nations that do not sense a need to acquire nuclear weapons do not seek them. And nations which do not have nuclear weapons are not a legitimate threat to set off a nuclear war. The United States need to pursue a saner foreign policy which does not inspire unstable tyrants to seek weapons of mass destruction.

(For more about the dangerous collectivist nature of neoconservatism, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

RFK Jr. and the Burning of Heretics

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

 
In an interview, environmentalist activist and nepotite Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—the son of the man who authorized the FBI to spy on Martin Luther King—responded to a question concerning climate change skeptics by saying: “I wish there were a law you could punish them with. I don’t think there is a law that you can punish those politicians under.” Despite having a J.D., Kennedy seems to be unaware of the First Amendment. Human beings have a natural right to think and speak their opinions. Expressing skepticism concerning scientific views is protected by the First Amendment. Just as a politician or any other human being has a natural right to express skepticism concerning superstring theory in physics, so too does an individual have a natural right to express skepticism toward theories concerning climate change.

Does Kennedy believe that false beliefs should be punished? If not, what makes climate change so special? Why should progressives and socialists who hold clearly discredited economic theories not also be subject to punishment? Belief in Keynesianism leads to government policies which cause untold suffering. Why should Marxists and their fellow travelers not be punished? Why? Because Keynesians, Marxists, and progressives have a natural right to free speech. And so do skeptics of climate change.

Science is not dogmatic. If science is to become less rigorous and more akin to religion, then the entire discipline will suffer. New discoveries and new technologies will become rare as a result. There is simply no such thing as “settled” science. At one time it was unthinkable that Newtonian physics would turn out not to be accurate. However, once the ideas of quantum mechanics had been formulated and tested, Newtonian physics became discredited. Should Einstein and other “heretics” have been punished for their disbelief in the Newtonian orthodoxy? When Big Bang and Steady State theorists were battling it out in the arena of scientific ideas, should the eventual victors have been prepared to punish those whose theory ended up being falsified? 

The First Amendment has historically vigorously defended the natural right to free speech. The defense of unpopular and sometimes disgusting ideas is most important in protecting freedom. There is no need  to defend ideas such as “2 + 2 = 4” or “The United States is good.” The ideas that need protection are ideas such as those present in communism or Nazism. Or fringe ideas such as the belief that the moon landing was a hoax. Even in an age where political correctness is prevalent on both the Neo-Progressive Left and the Neoconservative Right, the First Amendment remains a bastion of defense for free speech. Unlike in much of Western Europe, the United States allows individuals to read Mein Kampf and even organize Neo-Nazi parties. This freedom actually serves to discredit fascistic ideas. Instead of imbuing them with a kind of cachet through censorship and turning them into sexy “forbidden fruit,” allowing such ideas to be fully exposed reveals just how bad they are.

The real reason that Kennedy and other environmentalist collectivists like him seek to censor the speech of climate change skeptics is that they are losing the war of ideas. A June 2014 Pew Research Center poll indicated that 35% of Americans believe that the planet is not warming and another 18% believe that the planet is warming, but that it is due to natural causes and not to human activity. If one cannot convince the public, why not simply silence and bully the opposition? If environmentalists are the ones who actually love and follow science, then why are they acting so much like superstitious medieval priests seeking to burn heretics at the stake? The American public is simply not convinced that climate change is a serious problem. And even if climate change is real, caution is not an irrational strategy. After all, environmentalists not so very different from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. wanted to cover the Arctic ice cap with soot in the 1970s in order to melt them as a way of preventing another ice age. If climate change does cause major problems, it is likely more logical to deal with those problems as they arise.

(For more about the dangerous collectivist nature of environmentalism, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)