By, Chris Rossini
Overall, President Obama has been pretty tame when it comes to the prospect of expanded war. If we were suffering under a McCain or Romney administration, the Middle East would have surely gone up in flames by now.
Yet, since Obama is not a closet non-interventionist, the question arises as to why he's holding back.
War greatly benefits the State, especially the Executive. Obama, surely knows this. At some point in his life, he probably came across James Madison's warning: “War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandizement. In war, a physical force is to be created; and it is the executive will, which is to direct it. In war, the public treasuries are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense them.”
Yet despite the prospective increase in power to himself, he's holding back.
Why?
Things are surely not going well for Obama legislatively. Statists of all colors are questioning if he has a second-term "agenda" at all. He's currently going through a three-pronged scandal-fest, where even the word "impeachment" has been tossed around.
Heck, even Bill Clinton decided to bomb a factory in Sudan when the scandals hit.
But Obama is holding back.
Why?
Then there are the Neocons, who are at all times foaming at the mouth to drop bombs on someone. They rip into Obama in their columns on a daily basis. They've called him every name imaginable short of him being called a "wimp".
Stop Assad!!! Stop Iran!!! Stop North Korea!!!
Yet Obama shrugs the Neocons off.
Why?
Who knows?
But here's one thought to contemplate. What if he's keeping the option of massive war in his back pocket? And what if it has to do with the economy and inflation?
We are currently wading through unprecedented waters. The nefarious "experiments" conducted by the Federal Reserve are like nothing ever seen before. Those of us who have an understanding of Austrian Economics, and specifically the Austrian Business Cycle Theory, understand that there are tremendously hard times ahead for the financial system.
With that being the case, it goes without saying that, above all else, bankers and the Federal Reserve like to stay in the shadows. You can be sure that when the economy turns over, the blame must not fall on them. It's non-negotiable. Anything and anyone else must take the blame.
But what could possibly be big enough to act as the blame? What could be big enough to act as an excuse as to why prices are rising so rapidly, and why the financial system is such a mess? Since it must not be the Federal Reserve, something has to act as a storyline....
How about War?
It covers the bankers...It expands the powers of the Executive...It (tends) to unify the populace. "Stop complaining about $10 loaves of bread, don't you know our boys are fighting monsters overseas? Suck it up!"
Perhaps Obama is keeping the option of war close to his chest for a rainy day. It's always there with him if he needs it, and in the meantime, he can focus on turning the screws domestically.
Follow @ChrisRossini
The "War" card will be played.
ReplyDeleteThere are Trillions in debt that will never be repaid. The debt will be repudiated ("Our enemies have...") and defaulted ("We recognize these regimes are supported by those...which threaten...").
The Depression was born from restraints of world trade. Today we eliminate the Middle Man ("Why should I be concerned with people who PRODUCE things?") and go straight to the the Political Manipulation of $$$. If you thought the choking sound you heard when someone said in a weak moment that China was a - Horrors! - Currency Manipulator, you ain't seen nothing yet.
Remember, World War 1 was supposed a small, limited war.
CW
Personally Barry can't afford a major war, everyone has seen how W is persona non grata, Barry will around for at least another 25 years and nobody is going to pay him anything like the speech money that Bill gets.
ReplyDelete