Mark E. Rondeau
Today as never before in their history Americans are enthralled with military power. So begins the introduction to Andrew J. Bacevich’s thorough and prophetic examination of our increasing dependence on guns and bombs to insure our domestic security and spread our ideals of democracy abroad.

Bacevich, a Vietnam veteran and director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University, writes: To state the matter bluntly, Americans in our own time have fallen prey to militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness, and outsized expectations regarding the efficacy of force. To a degree without precedent in U.S. history, Americans have come to define the nation’s strength and well-being in terms of military preparedness, military action, and the fostering of (or nostalgia for) military ideals.

Marching in lockstep with militarism is American exceptionalism, the view that we embody universal ideals, valid for all times and places.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, these two tendencies have given us President George W. Bush’s open-ended global War on Terror. Indeed, with the justifications of weapons of mass destruction and pre-9/11 ties to Al Qaeda disproven, the default Bush justification for Gulf War II in Iraq has been to spread democracy in the Middle East.

Bacevich cautions, however, against blaming 9/11or Bushfor the rise of American militarism. Instead, he carefully details how it developed in the decades after the Vietnam War.

It is a complicated picture. It includes U.S. military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession after Vietnam. They succeeded so well that the easy victory of Gulf War I, in 1991, made it much easier to have recourse to arms in solving international conflicts. It includes the evolution of neoconservative intellectuals reacting to U.S. self-doubt after Vietnam with a vision of the spread of American ideals by force. It includes other intellectuals heralding the Revolution in Military Affairs. Moving warfare into the information age, R.M.A. would enable lean and fast military forces to apply overwhelming force in a surgical fashion for quick and easy victories to advance American interests and spread American ideals.

Hollywood, too, played a part in the rise of the new American militarism out of the ashes of Vietnam with such 1980’s movies as Top Gun. And, of course, the need for U.S. dominance in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing is a major factor behind the use and exaltation of military power.

The end of the cold war, and with it the end of the threat of a massive conventional battle with the Soviet Union in Europe, might have led to a real reduction in U.S. military spending. Yet, the current Pentagon budget, adjusted for inflation, is 12 percent larger than the average cold war era budget. By some estimates, the United States now spends more on defense than all other nations of the world combined.

Along with this is the paradox that military service is now solely a matter of individual choice, with the working class and minorities carrying a disproportionate share of the load.

The evangelical right has played a key role in the rise of militarism. The cultural excesses of the 1960’s in large part led conservative evangelicals to celebrate what they see as the traditional virtues of the military. Abandoning their own previously well-established skepticism about the morality of force and inspired in no small measure by their devotion to Israel, they articulated a highly permissive interpretation of the just war tradition, Bacevich writes. And they developed a considerable appetite for wielding armed might on behalf of righteousness, more often than not indistinguishable from America’s own interests.

Bacevich identifies himself as a Catholic and a cultural conservative, but one not at home with the current Bush administration. In a footnote, he writes that the scandal of sexual abuse of minors by members of the Catholic clergy discredited the U.S. bishops and in effect silenced them on the moral dimension of war and U.S. military policy. Drawing on the charismatic eloquence of Pope John Paul II, the American bishops could have served as a counterweight to the evangelical influence on these issues.

Ultimately, however, Bacevich’s argument against the new American militarism draws most on our nation’s traditional skepticism of foreign entanglements and large standing armies. The intention of the Founders as expressed in the Constitution does not justify the role of aggressive world policeman.

If it keeps to its current militaristic course, the United States will alienate people and nations around the world and leave us increasingly isolated. Bacevich adds, If history is any guide, it will end in bankruptcy, moral as well as economic, and in abject failure.

In the final chapter, Bacevich proposes a number of correctives. These include revitalizing the idea of separation of powersthat is, having Congress fulfill its constitutional responsibility of deciding when to declare warviewing force as a last resort; organizing U.S. forces explicitly for national defense; devising an appropriate way to determine the level of defense spending; enhancing alternative aspects of statecraft, such as diplomacy; and reviving the dormant concept of the citizen-soldier.

The New American Militarism is an important and prophetic book. One has to wonder, however, given the current political and cultural climate, whether it will make any impact at all on our national discussion.

Mark E. Rondeau, a former newspaper editor who live in North Adams, Mass., is a freelance correspondent for The Catholic Observer, of the Diocese of Springfield.

Comments

AmexCredit Card | 12/12/2007 - 3:13pm
There is a reason why people get credit cards. You pay more but there is no other way to buy the things you want. The thing is that you need to carefully compare credit card deals before choosing the one that will cost you less. If you want to find one check out transfer creidt card balance G7tb8Hjk
annamaria | 12/12/2007 - 10:40am
Hello guys! I am in a great need of credit card. My credit score is fair. I am going to apply online in order to save my time and make a step by step comparison before applying. I have chosen one website with the most alluring cards (in my opinion) and now seeking advice to clear up if this site is really reliable and safe. Perhaps you know. balance transfer credit cartds
argelia | 12/11/2007 - 10:18pm
I was stupid enough to use my Social Security number when I was filling out one of the forms online. Now I can’t buy anything on any websites because I don’t want to use my credit card number. I need a new credit card now and I understand that the most convenient way is to apply online but I don’t know whether is safe to use such websites as transfer crdit card
conchita | 12/10/2007 - 8:25pm
I have quite a high credit rating and was careless enough to get several credit cards for which I was pre-approved by email. Now I realize they are too many and I was late with payments for 2 of them. Fortunately, I got a balance transfer credit card and moved the most part of my debt there, as I found the advice and the application form at balance transfer cards with instant decision
abbie | 12/10/2007 - 2:11pm
Hi, everybody. I am going to get married but my boyfriend and I are still running credit card debt we made when at college yet. They say that we’d better improve our credit ratings if we want to apply for a loan to celebrate the wedding. So, now we both are looking for bad or fair credit card applications to repair our scores. We wonder if 0% interest credit trasfers
Fr. Larry N. Lorenzoni, S.D.B. | 6/20/2005 - 12:54pm
Kudos to Mark E. Rondeau for his insightful review of Andrew J. Bacevich's book The New American Militarism which he calls "important and prophetic." Our current Iraq experience forcefully proves the correctness of his judgment.

The ever increasing number of insurgents-caused American and pro-American Iraqi casualties and the compelling recent intelligence memos questioning our ill-advised rush to war in Iraq bring to mind the serious and critical March 2003 decision of pope John Paul II, probably regarded by the media as rather inconsequential at the time: Cardinal Pio Laghi, former Vatican ambassador to the USA, had been sent personally by the pope to Washington to plead with Bush and with some of his closest aides (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz) against the war with Iraq. The pope had also sent Cardinal Roger Etchegaray to Bagdad with the same plea for Saddam Ussein.

In a speech at Camaldoli (Arezzo, Italy) on October 4, 2003, Cardinal Laghi said he felt his arguments were not given much weight: "I had the impression that they had already made their decision," he said. Laghi spoke at length with the president about the terrible consequences of a war quickly won. "Do you realize, Mr. President," Laghi said to him, "what you will unleash inside Iraq by occupying it? Your men will not be welcomed with flowers and with flags. Do you realize the difficulty of the language, the disorder, the conflicts between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?" Yes, America's formidable war machine would make quick work of Ussein's inferior defenses, but unmanageable political and human problems would quickly follow. His predictions are now sadly becoming true.

President Bush had been offered the best intelligence available. The Catholic bishops in Iraq are constantly in touch with the Apostolic Nuncio in Baghdad and he with the Vatican. They speak the people's language and have their hand on the pulse of the nation. Their knowledge of Iraq is more reliable than that of our highly paid intelligence agencies which cost us billions but whose information has been repeatedly proven embarrassingly wrong and misleading.

That is what President Reagan understood so well 20 years ago when he appointed the first U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican because of his conviction that the Vatican is the world's greatest listening post.

Fr. Larry N. Lorenzoni, S.D.B. | 6/20/2005 - 12:54pm
Kudos to Mark E. Rondeau for his insightful review of Andrew J. Bacevich's book The New American Militarism which he calls "important and prophetic." Our current Iraq experience forcefully proves the correctness of his judgment.

The ever increasing number of insurgents-caused American and pro-American Iraqi casualties and the compelling recent intelligence memos questioning our ill-advised rush to war in Iraq bring to mind the serious and critical March 2003 decision of pope John Paul II, probably regarded by the media as rather inconsequential at the time: Cardinal Pio Laghi, former Vatican ambassador to the USA, had been sent personally by the pope to Washington to plead with Bush and with some of his closest aides (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz) against the war with Iraq. The pope had also sent Cardinal Roger Etchegaray to Bagdad with the same plea for Saddam Ussein.

In a speech at Camaldoli (Arezzo, Italy) on October 4, 2003, Cardinal Laghi said he felt his arguments were not given much weight: "I had the impression that they had already made their decision," he said. Laghi spoke at length with the president about the terrible consequences of a war quickly won. "Do you realize, Mr. President," Laghi said to him, "what you will unleash inside Iraq by occupying it? Your men will not be welcomed with flowers and with flags. Do you realize the difficulty of the language, the disorder, the conflicts between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds?" Yes, America's formidable war machine would make quick work of Ussein's inferior defenses, but unmanageable political and human problems would quickly follow. His predictions are now sadly becoming true.

President Bush had been offered the best intelligence available. The Catholic bishops in Iraq are constantly in touch with the Apostolic Nuncio in Baghdad and he with the Vatican. They speak the people's language and have their hand on the pulse of the nation. Their knowledge of Iraq is more reliable than that of our highly paid intelligence agencies which cost us billions but whose information has been repeatedly proven embarrassingly wrong and misleading.

That is what President Reagan understood so well 20 years ago when he appointed the first U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican because of his conviction that the Vatican is the world's greatest listening post.