Colonel (ret) Douglas Macgregor is a decorated combat veteran, the author of
four books. He is also Executive Vice President of Burke-Macgregor Group
LLC, a consulting and intellectual capital brokerage firm based in Reston,
Virginia. Macgregor was commissioned in the US Army in 1976 after one year
at the Virginia Military Institute and four years at West Point. Macgregor
has testified as an expert witness on national security issues before the
House Armed Services Committee and the House Foreign Relations Committee. He
is a supporter of Ron Paul (R-Tex) and a spokesperson for veterans' groups
that are organizing marches and demonstrations on behalf of Republican
candidate for president, Ron Paul.
Bell: Give us some
background on yourself and the US military-industrial complex.
Douglas Macgregor: Let's
be clear. I think we are spending far more on defense than we need to and
that's been true for a very long time. It's become a self-perpetuating
industry, sometimes referred to as a self-licking ice cream cone. I think
it's a good way to depict the American defense establishment at this point,
though. I am by no means anti-defense or anti-defense industry but I think
we can extract more for our money and we can do business much better than we
are or what we have been doing for a very long time. One of the reasons that
I wrote the books on military reform and reorganization is because until you
go after the defense system and reorganize it and change it, the defense
industry is not going to be changed. The defense industry has organized
itself to support the client and it mirrors a very Byzantine, bloated
defense establishment that we maintain in the United States.
many people, I walked away in 1991 from Desert Storm with the view that we
had failed strategically to achieve our objective. The generals were, as
usual, very timid and reluctant to fight. We assembled this monumental
military force designed to take on and defeat the Soviet Armed Forces in
Europe and we didn't use it effectively. We didn't use it effectively for a
whole range of reasons because we were organized to refight WWII, which
was a mistake, but also because the people at the top were very much
bureaucrats who had risen through the ranks in peace time and they failed.
political leadership chose to ignore that failure because they could, and
I'm talking about George Bush Sr. and others, who thought they could
capitalize on this great strategic achievement, which was not a great
strategic achievement politically in the next election. As we know, that did
not work. The American people, as usual, were not terribly engaged. They
were happy to lead cheers, happy to receive the usual glowing reports
regardless of whether or not they were accurate.
so I walked away from the desert and that experience and we should have
taken it more seriously than we did and made fundamental changes in reforms.
Again we did not because there was no interest in the senior ranks to do so
and no one in Congress was either sufficiently well informed or interested
to make any changes. So the result is you have this trillion-dollar defense
establishment that is still designed for the most part to maintain large
numbers of generals and admirals and headquarters and to feed politicians'
re-election campaign coffers and sustain this bloated defense industry.
Again, it's all linked together but it all begins fundamentally with the
nature of this military establishment.
Bell: What was key to
your realization that the US military was not what you thought it was?
Douglas Macgregor: The
key to realizing that was seeing the various people in the chain of command
operate, the various senior officers. I describe it in great detail in my
book, Warrior's Rage, which describes the largest tank battle the US Army
fought since the end of the Second World War. It describes the enemy and it
describes the generals and their failure to come to terms with the weakness
of the Iraqi enemy, and the opportunities that were presented, because they
really weren't interested in fighting at all. To sum it up briefly, they
were much more worried about losing the fight than they were about winning
it. So their objective was to emerge without having lost as opposed to
having won anything. And that's the mentality that continues to this day.
We've seen it again and again in Afghanistan and Iraq and the consequences
have been destructive and disastrous for the American people and the
Bell: What is it?
Douglas Macgregor: I
think it's a self-licking ice cream cone. The generals are not oriented on
waging war; they're pre-occupied with maintaining the bureaucratic status
quo. Remember, depending on at what level you retire, the higher obviously
the better, you can make a great deal of money in the defense industry. The
defense industry hires you not because you know anything or you are a
particular expert; they hire you because you can call your friends on active
duty and tell them to buy things or do things in return for which when they
retire, they too will be rewarded with handsome retirements inside the
defense industry. This extends to Congress; it's kind of a form of what I
would call legalized corruption.
the last thing anyone is concerned about is the quality of the fighting
formations, the people in them, what happens to them and their readiness to
deploy and fight against anyone who can fight back. I think that's the most
important feature that your readers should keep in mind, that certainly
since 1991, we have not fought anyone who has armies, air forces, navies or
air defenses. In fact, we haven't fought anyone who is capable of presenting
real resistance or fighting back so we haven't had real wars, in that sense.
What we've had are colonial expeditions reminiscent of what the British and
the French conducted in the late 19th century.
Bell: Is it a danger to
the US republic?
Douglas Macgregor: Very
much so but there are a couple of things to keep in mind. I think your
readers will appreciate this. We are on the threshold of budgetary
Armageddon. There are people, of course, in Washington in fact, the
majority at this point who don't seem to think that matters. They seem
to think we can borrow money in perpetuity at 2% interest, that the world is
so dependant on this enormous American consumption machine that people will
lend us money regardless of the circumstances.
don't happen to share that view. My view is quite the opposite. Debt
matters. It's always mattered and it's going to crush us. The United States
within the next two to three years is going to be in a position very similar
to Greece, Italy and Spain. And long before that occurs, of course, we are
going to watch the Eurozone collapse along with London, I suspect, and the
British economy and then it will reach us and Japan. The Chinese, who are
already in the throws of a downturn, if you will, is going to have an effect
on them and on us, in ways that today no one really appreciates.
in the final analysis, budgetary Armageddon is going to provide us with an
opportunity to make fundamental changes, not just in the defense
establishment but also in the organization of our government. Because it's
not a question right now of simply tinkering on the margins and making
modest reforms. The whole structure is in serious trouble because it doesn't
work very well and it no longer performs the tasks for which it was
designed. To understand why this budgetary Armageddon will make a
difference, just keep in mind that the British ultimately left India not
when they should have left India that was probably immediately after
WWI, because certainly from the beginning of the 20th century onward, the
British were investing more in their empire than they were taking out of it.
So the empire was mortgaged to British vanity and you can make the argument
that our bloated military establishment, the way we do business, is
mortgaged to American vanity.
are lots of Americans who equate bombing people in remote places who can't
fight back with the demonstration of American greatness. There are lots of
them on the Hill but there are lots of citizens who simply don't understand
that war has consequences because, again, we have been faced with
adversaries who couldn't fight back. So again, the whole idea of war is no
longer understood. Its consequences and impacts are not appreciated because
it doesn't hit home.
we are going to go through something very similar. We are going to make
profound change in this country not because we should but because we will
have no choice. There will simply be no more money to finance the kind of
insanity that we're engaged in right now, both overseas and at home. We're
not going to be able to finance social security, Medicare, Medicaid or the
defense establishment in the scale we have in the past. This is going to be
a very difficult time for the United States - a true catharsis for the
Bell: Is there a US
Douglas Macgregor: Well,
there certainly are the outlines of one. I have great confidence and faith
in the people who I call Americans. Not everybody in the United States today
is an American, unfortunately. We have a country that is Balkanized and
divided. Multiculturalism ultimately equates to multinationalism and a
multilingual state. We've been on this road now since the late '60s and
early '70s and I think the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. We
have large numbers of people who are divided along racial as well as
economic lines, and unfortunately, much of the economic divide overlaps with
the racial divide.
these issues of prosperity have effectively submerged and no one really
wants to deal with them. But the collapse in prosperity, the downturn in
living standards that will come as a consequence of this crisis that looms
on the horizon, which Ron Paul has talked about for decades, as you know.
This is going to throw all of these divisions into very sharp relief. And at
that point we are going to discover, first of all, the answer to your
question, which is, is this republic real? Does it still exist? I think it
does but I think it's going to be a very serious crisis. And then we are
going to discover who is an American and that's going to be another
catharsis. We are going to define ourselves. What are we who are we
that is something we have not had to do for a very long time, certainly not
since the Second World War.
Bell: Were the Founders
in favor of a standing army?
Douglas Macgregor: Well,
I think the Founders were concerned about the experience with Cromwell and
the English civil wars even though Cromwell frankly had a huge impact on the
development of the United States. If you want to understand the American
Constitution and you want to understand the development of the American
people, you have to go back to the Protestants from Great Britain who came
to the United States in the 17th century, their experiences and backgrounds.
They really defined us. What we thought of our religious freedom and the
American Constitution, contrary to what people think today, they were not
talking about all religions at all. We were talking about religious freedoms
for Christians and those Christians at the time, as I am sure your readers
know, where Protestants, and largely Baptists, Presbyterians, a few
Lutherans thrown in, these people had been oppressed and suppressed by the
Anglican Church and before that the Roman Catholic Church. So they were very
concerned about religious freedom for those sects.
the time, no one considered the possibility that we would have large numbers
of Muslims come to the United States and I doubt seriously if that had
occurred to anyone at the time that they would have wanted it. These are
divisive issues. We now have more Muslims in the United States than we have
Jews. Again, where do they fit in? Do they assimilate? Do they become
Americans, particularly in an environment where we have renounced
assimilation? In fact, the Obama administration is encouraging all these
people from the Third World to set up and establish their own independent
states inside the United States for all intents and purposes. The lessons of
history are that great nations that go through this don't survive.
Austria/Hungary is gone. Czarist Russia and the success of the Soviet Union
are gone. Yugoslavia is gone. Czechoslovakia is gone. Nations that tolerate
that kind of division and Balkanization inside their countries do not last.
this is a catharsis. We are going to have go through it and deal with it and
answer to it and all of it overlaps with the economic problem. We know from
our study in history that it is the economic crisis, the downturn in
economic prosperity, the collapse of economic strength that inevitably
brings on these developments. So when you ask about a standing army, the
same thing is true for the English-speaking people, that they are
uncomfortable with large standing professional military establishments
because historically the English people haven't needed them. Britain is an
island; it has no need for a large standing professional military
establishment. It needed a professional military organization, which it had,
which was a small but effective professional army and a confident navy that
was designed to protect access to markets. We in the United States were very
similar but in the last 50 or 60 years we have become quite confused. We
have become effectively an imperial power, something the Founders never
thought would happen and would object to, and that I object to, I don't
think we need to be an imperial power. I don't think we need to be but we
now have inside the United States, interests, single-issue interest groups,
with agendas that are frankly divorced from the American people.
Bell: Give us some
specifics on the Iraq war. Afghanistan. Success or failure?
Douglas Macgregor: Iraq
and Afghanistan are disasters and anyone who asserts otherwise is
misinformed. I recently met with someone who is an advocate for Mitt Romney
and he was unhappy with me because I pointed out that the differences
between Governor Romney and President Obama are marginal at best. He was
trying to demonstrate how profoundly different they were. He was
unsuccessful but one of the things he insisted on was that Obama had somehow
or another sacrificed our great gains in Iraq. I looked at him and said,
"You can't be serious." He said, "What do you mean?" He
seemed to be completely unaware, as many Americans are, that Iraq is
effectively a satellite for Iran. That the United States Army and it's
generals did a brilliant job of consolidating the power and influence of
Iran inside Iraq, by backing Mr. Maliki who is always Tehran's chosen
candidate and utterly destroying the Sunni Arab population's influence and
power. He was stunned and he said, "I don't understand what you are
talking about." I said, "Of course you don't but consider this. If
you think we were successful in any way in Iraq, then why did our columns of
troops leave at 2:00 in the morning in the dead of night, along a road that
was more secured than any penitentiary in the United States? And why, once
we arrived in Kuwait, did we celebrate the fact that no one had been killed
during the withdrawal in the middle of the night?" I said, "If
that is evidence for victory then you certainly define victory very
differently from me." I think Afghanistan will be perhaps even worse.
Bell: You are a
supporter of Ron Paul. Why ... and how?
Douglas Macgregor: What
appeals to me about Ron Paul can be summed up by one of his performances
during the debates. He was asked a question by someone, after they had
criticized Romney, Gingrich and Santorum for lobbying activities that
characterized them to a greater or lesser extent as having behaved or acted
like lobbyists. When they got to Ron Paul they asked him about lobbyists and
he said, "You know, I don't know any lobbyists. I won't meet with
for your readers who may not be Americans it is important that they
understand that lobbying is an enormously important and influential industry
inside Washington. Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent by both foreign
powers as well as corporate entities inside the United States and various
private organizations to shape and influence legislation. The fact that Ron
Paul knew no lobbyists and wouldn't meet with them is a measure of the man's
integrity. And frankly, a demonstration to the extent that he is not
corrupt. He is there not only to represent his district but as Edmund Burke
suggested, to also think clearly about what is in the interest of the
American people and try and act in accordance with that larger national
interest as well as the interest of his constituents. So I think that is
more than anything else what appeals to me about Ron Paul.
Bell: How have your
Douglas Macgregor: I
like to think of myself as a politically conservative person not in the
sense that I am interested in using big government to shove my views down
other people's throats. Again, that is something that appeals to me about
Ron Paul. He sees government as something that needs to shrink because it's
too intrusive, and so do I. Again, I see the traditional English-speaking
paradigm in the United States where the best decisions are made at the local
level, inside people's families, in their communities, towns, cities and
states - not in Washington. So I have great confidence in the ability of the
majority of Americans to make good decisions if they are allowed to do so. I
am not interested in legislation on the federal level. It is designed to
re-engineer how people think, how they live, where they go to school, what
they eat and so forth in the United States.
Bell: What about areas
such as globalization and the so-called new world order?
Douglas Macgregor: These
terms you just used are really Trojan Horses for the socialist elite that
dominates both western Europe and North America, to essentially re-engineer
society to suit themselves. And as you can imagine, like all ruling elite
they are corrupt. This also goes to the issue of the central bank and the
origins of not only the Federal Reserve System but the central banking
system in Europe. These things have turned out to be destructive because not
only do they seek to socialize losses by shifting the burden by compensating
the losses to the taxpayers in both Europe and North America, but it also
allows them to manipulate countries and states into conflicts with each
other that otherwise would probably not occur. That, again, is another
reason I have been very supportive of Ron Paul because I think central
banking has turned out to be a disaster.
again, the socialist is very beguiling in his approach promising vast
numbers of people in countries if only they will surrender their influence,
surrender their rights for all intents and purposes to the socialist ruling
elite, that somehow the ruling socialist elite will postpone or eliminate
entirely the business cycle, that no one need ever suffer again. I think
this is the thing that appeals to me about Ron Paul. Ron Paul wants to live
in a world where we are not sedated consumers ready to make ourselves
dependent on the whims of the ruling elite that masquerade as democrats -
and I am using democrats with a small d. In fact, the ruling elite is like
the ruling elite in any society. It's about itself. It's about abridging
itself, maintaining and controlling everyone that it can in order to stay in
don't want to live in that world, Ron Paul doesn't want to live in it and I
don't think most Americans really want to live in that world. But again, the
catharsis is coming, the fight is coming and we are going to have to sort
this out and decide just what do we want, just where we want to live, what
kind of America do we want? And this economic crisis is going to compel us
to answer those questions.
Bell: Are you helping to
organize veterans' marches for Ron Paul?
Douglas Macgregor: No, I
haven't organized any of that. That's being done by an entirely different
group of people. They asked me to be a spokesperson for them. I have to tell
you I grew so angry over time. Going to the funerals for young people,
soldiers, sergeants, lieutenants and captains. People I knew in active duty.
People I taught at West Point. I was very, very willing to speak on their
behalf because these are veterans and they're an enormous number, well over
100,000. These are people who've actually served and done something. They
not only showed up and did their duty as Americans as they were asked to;
they have done more than that. They've seen action, they've been under fire
as I have, and they understand what combat means and what warfare means. And
they understand what devastating impact these colonial expeditions that we
call Iraq and Afghanistan have had on the Americans in uniform and on the
people in these countries who are caught in the middle. They know that we
have killed, wounded or incarcerated hundreds of thousands of Arabs and
Afghans and we have done so unnecessarily and pointlessly, in pursuit of
this Utopian notion that we can transform millions of Muslims and Afghans
into Anglo-Saxon democrats. It's absurd nonsense. It needs to die once and
for all but in the meantime the damage we have done to ourselves, between
the 4 trillion dollars at least that we have lost indirectly and trillions
more that we'll lose as a consequence of trying to help the damaged human
beings that are trying to emerge from these conflicts, then you have the
human toll, which we occasionally read about and we pay lip service to but
really people don't understand. This sort of thing is why I was drawn to the
veterans' thing for Ron Paul and that is why I am happy to speak for them.
Bell: What happens if he
Douglas Macgregor: First
of all, those of us who support the man never thought that Ron Paul was the
sort of candidate in the current environment that would win the nomination.
We always understood that his campaign was about a great deal more than this
particular electoral contest and a great deal more than just this
nomination. Ron Paul has been making these arguments about the criticality
of reform and reorganization of our government, the way we do business,
restoring the free market or Austrian economics for a very long time. He has
also warned against the damage that these interventions are causing here at
home and he's pointed to the link between the large intrusive government
domestically and the large intrusive government that leads us to intervene
in other people's countries overseas. Those are the things that he has been
are now at that point where these things are going to be thrown into very
short release. In the next two to three years everything that Ron Paul has
warned against will come to fruition. I think that Ron Paul's great
contribution at that point will be to act as a beacon of light in this very
dark period of our nation's history. Ultimately he will illuminate the way
out of this by espousing the principals that he has. So I think that's what
we're all about, that's why we support him and that's why we don't regard
the failure of the Republican Party, which has strayed very, very far from
it's underlying principals and ideas. I don't think we're too worried about
the failure of the Party at this point because this party has strayed very
far from its ideals, and it's going to be compelled to regain its old
position inside our American society or it will be replaced.
Bell: Will you support
another GOP candidate perhaps Mitt Romney?
Douglas Macgregor: I
think there are many people running for office in the Republican Party, in
the House and the Senate, who agree with Ron Paul. What I think is very
interesting in this current electoral contest is both Gingrich and Santorum,
who continue to espouse silliness overseas, in a domestic sense, largely
adopted the Ron Paul economic agenda. They adopted his view of the business
world, the private sector and the kinds of things that can be done in terms
of legislation and change to reinvigorate prosperity in the United States. I
think that's a glimpse of where we're headed. They might not want to admit
that publicly, although I think Newt Gingrich objectively has and so did
Santorum. The problem for us, of course, is the status quo individuals like
Mitt Romney and the people that surround him who aren't very different than
the people surrounding Obama and none of this will last. At this point, they
are nearing the end of their tenure. The coming economic catharsis is going
to sweep them away. I think there are lots of people who know Ron Paul is
right, most of them Republicans, and I will certainly support them for
office in the United States.
Bell: On your website
you speak about the Japanese striking Pearl Harbor. Did Roosevelt know about
the strike in advance? Did he help facilitate it?
Douglas Macgregor: Well,
what I will tell you is this. As with most things in history, the truth
really begins to emerge 40 or 50 years after the event. That's not because
no one told the truth at the time but because it simply becomes very
difficult to break through the status quo. One of the things that I say
about Ron Paul is one of the things that George Orwell said: When deceit is
universal, speaking the truth is a revolutionary act. Ron Paul has been
speaking the truth for years and that in itself is a revolutionary act. The
things that I am saying are viewed by the status quo in the mainstream media
and in the government as revolutionary, but really aren't.
when you talk about the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and you point to the
obvious decisions that were made in the lead-up to that unfortunate tragedy
that involved the embargo, that left the Japanese very little choice and
made it abundantly clear that we were their enemies, then you begin to reach
the conclusion that perhaps, in fact, this was something the FDR
administration wanted to bring on, because they saw it as a means to
extricating us from the economic depression, which I am sure as many of your
readers know was very bad in 1939 and 1940. It made matters worse than it
had been previously. One of the reasons that FDR implemented the draft in
1939 was to reduce unemployment. The universal draft meant that you took
large numbers of people off the street that otherwise had no employment. So
you see in retrospect there is a systematic approach that leads to an
yes, war was a means to an end, and having said that, it would be a mistake
to argue that FDR necessarily wanted to go to war in Europe. Some people
will assert that but the truth of the matter is that in 1941, if Adolf
Hitler had renounced his treaty with the Japanese on the grounds that he
would not go to war with the United States, we would not have gone to war
with Nazi Germany because there was very little support in the United States
for war with Germany. Our experience in WWI was still very fresh in
everybody's minds and everyone concluded that we had no business going to
war in 1917, that we rescued British and French imperialism, that the
Germans, the Austrians and the Hungarians were never our enemies and we
should never have involved ourselves. Remember, we suffered 310,000
casualties in about five months of fighting. That's worse than any other
conflict that we have ever been involved with. That had a huge impact. I can
tell you from my own family and from others whose relatives were in the
First World War, everybody came back and made the decision to vote
Republican and that never again will American forces be used on behalf of
another nation's interests, which in 1917 was the British Empire.
Bell: You write,
"Today, the same voices that advocated war with Iraq on specious
grounds are urging an attack on Iran." Who are these voices? Why do
they want a war?
Douglas Macgregor: This
is a different set of circumstances. Iraq was the unfinished war. As I point
out in my book, our failure in 1991 to accomplish our mission, which was to
destroy or capture the Republican Guard thus making it impossible for Saddam
Hussein and his regime to survive in power, was the reason we went back in
2003. All this business about weapons of mass destruction was subterfuge and
utter nonsense. Lots of people lied to do that. The real reason was to
finish the war, remove Saddam and restore Iraq's oil to the world market.
of that could have been done very easily, with relatively few forces and
very little damage to Iraq, had we stuck to the original plan, which was not
to dismantle the army, the state, effectively try to make Iraqi society into
something it could never be. But the neocons, Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby,
Cheney and others, managed to prevail upon George Bush to do something that
we shouldn't have done, which was adopt this position that we could turn
Iraq into the Middle East's first liberal democracy and make this Arab
liberal democracy in Iraq friendly to Israel. Once we adopted that
particular goal in the aftermath of Bagdad's fall, then we started down this
road to disaster. The lesson in history in the Middle East is very simple.
Muslims will not tolerate government and administration from Christians
European Christians, any Christians. We knew that and we did it anyway,
supposedly for Utopian reasons. Serious mistake and we paid a terrible price
was a little different. We initially went in there with a white footprint,
which made sense. We tried to work with the locals. We capitalized on
brilliant intelligence provided to us by Iran and Russia and we were
successful until we were unsuccessful in Tora Bora and we allowed Osama bin
Laden to escape. Having allowed them to escape we had to maintain a presence
in the country and then, of course, this same group of people, the same
kinds of mentality that admired us in Iraq, pursued us to do something
similarly stupid in Afghanistan.
you have this influence of over 100,000 conventional combat forces as we
embark upon a nation-building mission and, of course, we declare the Taliban
and a host of others to be our enemies when, in fact, they were irrelevant
to us. We were only interested in Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda is not and was not in
the country yet. Al-Qaeda is extremely unpopular with the Taliban and I dare
say once the Taliban reasserts it's control over the country, anyone who
shows up who is a foreigner from Al-Qaeda won't likely be welcomed.
we are saddled with ideology and the same ideology in the foreign policy arm
that thinks that we can transform the world into a replica of the United
States and can export English speaking liberal democracy and its underlying
values to peoples where the conditions to these things don't exist for
reasons of culture and economics. They are also responsible for the Utopian
dream that we can simply print or borrow money in perpetuity, the Keynesian
illusion. That illusion is going to die very hard with very terrible
consequences for all of us and it's unfortunate but this is usually the case
with Utopian ideologies. They have to be destroyed before people will
Bell: Where does Israel
fit into all this?
Douglas Macgregor: I
think the Israeli thing has to be understood in the following sense. It is a
mistake to insist, as I increasingly hear from people, that "all Jews
are somehow or another unconditional supporters of whatever the Israeli
state wants to do regardless of what is in American interest." That's
simply not true. What you have are numbers of people who call themselves
neocons. They operate in a variety of settings in the government and in the
media, and they support or advocate, for all intents and purposes,
unconditional support for whatever the Israeli government wants to do. They
are no means the majority and they are by no means representative of what I
would call Americans who happen to be Jewish.
say that because I fear anti-Semitism. I fear it because I think there is
growing discontent with this sense that we have people making decisions in
Washington that in their minds are beneficial to a foreign power and are not
necessarily good for the American people or the United States. That's a bad
thing and I don't think it's unique because we have been down this road
before. What will happen in the future? I don't know. What will happen with
Iran? I don't know. They are a nation of 78 million people that spends less
on defense than Greece, a nation of 11 million. The Iranians cannot project
any military power beyond their border. They are very weak. Currently they
are very fragmented as a society. There is great discontent. The economy is
in serious trouble. The living standards are poor and there is a growing
awareness inside that country that things could be very different and much
the same time, Iran's trump card is subversion, it's ability to operate
through Shia populations in adjoining or neighboring countries. That's
what's happening in Iraq, that's what goes on in Bahrain and eastern Saudi
Arabia. In that sense, the Iranians do present a real security challenge to
those countries except in Iraq where Shia's are a majority and they have now
established themselves so that's why effectively Iraq is an Iranian
satellite. But other than that, Iran's ability to take material like
enriched uranium and turn it into a warhead and make it work or subsequently
integrate to a missile or an aircraft to deliver it, those are much more
challenging things that more people are aware of, as we have seen recently
with North Korea, which is more confident technically than the Iranians.
This is the second attempt to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile,
which has been a dismal failure. Iranians are looking at inter-ballistic
missiles, for use inside their own region, because they feel threatened.
continue to quote them out of context and often quote them inaccurately.
We've got this bandwagon that's trying to drag us into yet another conflict
with them on the assumption that doing so will be good for us and Israel. I
don't think either is the case. I think it's a very short-term view and a
very misleading one. Iran is evolving. It's going to continue to do that
over the decade. We could wake up to discover that we are dealing with a
very different state of the future than the one we see today. There are lots
of reasons to look forward to the time when we can work with as opposed to
work against Iran.
the other hand, the evolution in the Sunni Muslim world is very different.
The Turks have retreated dramatically from the secular state that he created
and you now have an Islamist Turkish government with a perfectly
nationalistic population and that also, in contrast to Iran, has a very
proper military establishment and a very strong martial tradition. Turkey is
in a position over the next ten years to become the leading Muslim power
that not only dominates on the basis of its military power but is recognized
as the de facto leader of the Sunni Muslim world in the Middle East and
North Africa. You could see over the next several years an alliance emerge
in the region, a Sunni Muslim alliance that is anti-western, anti-European
and anti-Israel. That, I think, is more prominently our concerns for the
future than anything in Iran. But then again, I am a minority on that point
right now in the United States.
Bell: Is a military
dictatorship in the cards for the US?
Douglas Macgregor: A
military dictatorship in the United States is not going to happen. There's
no danger of that and there never has been. Most of the people in the
military are like myself; the last thing they want to be involved with after
what they have been dragged into for the last 20 years is civil
administration. That destroys military establishments. It's one of the
reasons that the US Army and Marines, in my judgment, are in very serious
trouble right now because they have been involved in everything other than
war fighting. There is no appetite for it at all and I think that is the
least of everyone's concerns.
Bell: What kind of
military would you like to see in the US?
Douglas Macgregor: What
we need is a military establishment with a unified military command
structure. That is, a joint integrated command structure. We have too many
single-service headquarters, massively bloated bureaucratic overhead that we
don't need and we need to change that. Then we need to go into the services
and reduce the rank structures, reduce the echelons of commanding control,
consolidate many of the activities much as the British have done and the
United Kingdom where they have created joint integrated acquisition and
procurement and so forth. All of these things will allow us to preserve
critical military capabilities that we need to defend the United States and
its interests while at the same doing so much more inexpensively and
again, that's not a popular approach. Reducing overhead, bloat and the way
you do business, ensuring that there are no proprietary systems, and systems
that are all compelled to talk to each other, work with each other and
collaborate with each other. These things threaten interests and they
threaten people who make a great deal of money from proprietary systems.
Through acquisition they threaten huge bureaucracy employing large numbers
of flag officers. And all of this will have to go away but, again, I think
we have the opportunity for all this because of the economic downturn that
will come as a result of the fiscal meltdown.
Bell: Any final
Douglas Macgregor: I
would like to say to your readers, don't be misled. There are lots of men in
uniform who feel the way I do. I am just willing to speak publicly and I
have written books and so forth and that's not something most people do. I
think you would be surprised at the attitudes of people in uniform. Again,
remember that many of them are worried. If you are on active duty you can't
say anything about these things or you risk everything. If you are retired
and you are dependant for income on what you referred to earlier, the
military-industrial complex, those jobs and access to them are controlled by
retired flag officers who will quickly move to remove you if you say things
that, in their view, undermine the income stream, the revenue stream. Bottom
line is, there are lots of people who share these views but, for the reasons
I have outlined, are not going to go public with it.
Bell: Any other points
you want to make? Any websites you want to mention for readers to look at?
Douglas Macgregor: Just
thank you for talking to me and your efforts to inform the public. We need
every alternative we can find to the mainstream media, which is simply not
interested in information. As we discussed, they are in the business of
preserving the status quo and they support the self-appointed ruling elite
that we have been discussing. That's the problem.
might have a look at www.warriorsrage.com, www.douglasmacgregor.com,
and our YOUTUBE
Bell: Thanks for sitting
down with us.
Douglas Macgregor: Thank
Bell After Thoughts
Douglas Macgregor is one of a few military men willing to speak out at what
is surely a dark time for America's military. If you read between the lines,
he is intimating, in our view, a good deal more than he is saying. We are,
in fact, sensitive to that because of our views on the subject.
wars in which the US is now engaged are, in our opinion, part of a power
elite drive toward global government; they are not wars of "American
defense" but offensive efforts designed to create certain globalist
outcomes supervised by interests that promote internationalism.
American government, from a military perspective, has been engaged in the
support of this elite element for at least a century. Macgregor himself
makes the point that World War I was a war fought by Americans to support
British interests. However, British interests in this case were synonymous
with international ones.
significant result of World War I was the League of Nations. When the League
foundered, it seems to us that World War II was launched in part to continue
the globalist impetus. Germany's military buildup was funded partially by
Western interests and the post World War II structure implemented the
current globalist paradigm that includes the UN, IMF, World Bank, etc.
dual function of the American military, whereby it supposedly serves the
interest of an American nation but actually supports the interests of
globalism, continues to this day. Macgregor obviously recognizes it, as does
Ron Paul. So do 100,000 veteran soldiers who are willing to march in support
of Ron Paul and his views on limiting American military involvement to
engagements that actually affect US interests and the people who are
citizens of what once was a US republic.
are sure the elites are worried about the discontent in the US military but
ongoing, endless wars have certainly been responsible for growing anti-war
sentiment among many who have served in these wars and have grown tired of
them. The wars have caused untold overseas suffering for both US soldiers
and civilian populations caught up in the violence. They have supposedly
come about as a result of 9/11, but this too is a questionable matter, with
some on the 9/11 committee itself distancing themselves from the current
narrative of the attacks.
has now decided to speak up. Readers may believe he has not gone far enough,
or made his sentiments clear enough, but from our point of view there is no
doubt Colonel Macgregor is sending a message, just as the vets supporting
Ron Paul are sending a message ... that wars without cause and without end
are simply not tolerable. We hope this message gathers force and resonates.
with permission from The
Wile is an author, columnist, media commentator and entrepreneur focused on
developing projects that promote the general advancement of free-market
thinking concepts. He is the chief editor of the popular free-market
oriented news site, TheDailyBell.com.
Mr. Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation for the Advancement of
Free-Market Thinking a non-profit Liechtenstein-based foundation. His
most popular book, High
is now in its third edition and available in several languages. Other
notable books written by Mr. Wile include The
Liberation of Flockhead (2002)
and The Value of Gold (2002).
Copyright 2012 The
Release to Media 2.5.12
PARTY NOMINATES RON PAUL
February 4th, in Springfield, Oregon, the Constitution Party selected
Congressman Ron Paul, Texas, to be the partys 2012 Presidential nominee.
nomination of Congressman Paul for the office of President was accompanied
by a nomination of Art Robinson, Cave Junction, for Representative in
Congress, Oregon's 4th District.
Constitution Party vice-chairman Bob Ekstrom, in making the motion to
nominate said, "Congressman Paul is the best hope for Americans who
want decisive action on the national debt now, not later. His policies will
shrink the size of the federal government but increase freedom for citizens
in their everyday lives. That is precisely what most people want but cannot
obtain from the nation's establishment leaders."
nominating Mr. Robinson, Chairman Jack Brown pointed to Art Robinson's,
"strong campaign founded on constitutional principles two years
nominations are planned for other offices at a later date.
Constitution Party of Oregon believes that principles of justice and
constitutional authority should be the baseline for citizens deciding how to
use their vote rather than party loyalty or personal advantage.
Chairman Jack Brown, Grants Pass
Bob Ekstrom, Scappoose