The first thing I noticed about this book was the title. I was in the dollar store, you see, and usually, I take a very brief glance at the books, just in case there is something of interest. But there hardly ever is. Yet this book was there when I visited the store in late August, just prior to a trip with my son, as I was stocking up on supplies, mostly snacks and drinks for us.
Mostly, I was checking just to make sure that, as usual, there really was nothing of interest in the book section. That is when I saw this book.
I was not familiar with it, nor of the author. But the title caught my attention. I picked it up, and looked at the cover illustration on the dustjacket. It was interesting, and showed an hourglass, with an American flag on the top section of the glass pouring into what is presumably desert sand on the bottom, which seemed to carry with it obvious implications.
Hmmmm....this seemed interesting. mix this up with the rather provocative title: "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism", and it was enough for me to peruse a bit through the book. It looked like it would be an interesting read. I then remembered that everything in the store is supposed to be $1.00, and so I shrugged, and kind of said, "What the hell? Why not?"
So, I had a new book to read, but was in the middle of numerous books at the time. I actually began to read this book a bit after my return from the trip.
Before going on about the details of the contents of what is contained in this book (and it is a doosie!), I want to mention something that, just after finishing it up, I read in his Acknowledgements that he was dedicating the book to his son, a First Lieutenant in the US Army, who lost his life in action in Iraq back in 2007. Why had he kept so quiet about it? But when I went back to the front of the book, there it was, in big letters, a dedication to his fallen son. Usually, I don't miss stuff like that so blatantly, and I'm not sure how or why it happened this time. Given the material that Bacevich covered ni the book, everything that I had just finished reading suddenly had taken a very personal feel to it, and I could imagine the personal price that this man and his wife must have taken. This was not just some cold and detached political or philosophical doctrine in the harshness of the black and white of the printed page. This was heartfelt, and added a very sad, and intensely personal, connotation to it.
One of my worst fears, and something that I think any parent would agree is just about the worst thing imaginable, and so difficult to even fathom that you almost immediately try to perish the thought, is the possibility of having to bury your own child. To remain on this earth, to still be alive, and see the death of your own. I have a son, who is about to turn seven next month. I would like another child, as well. At least one. But I get choked up just in approaching the subject, because it's too difficult to think about, too sad. There's that painful feeling in the back of my throat, and I try to banish the thought. Sure, I would love to think that I have the strength of character to get past something like that, but the truth of the matter is that I'm just not sure. I've met some people who lost their child, and they seemed strong about it. But how would I react? I can't necessarily say that I would respond so strongly like that. It's one of those thing, most likely, that you don't know until you have experienced it. So, for this man to have written a book so loaded with provocative ideas, knowing that he paid such an intensely personal price and had to swallow such a bitter pill, allowed me to see this book and the material within that had been so potent in a very different light, once it finally dawned on me who he had dedicated it to and why.
Let's just say it gave me pause for thought, as well as new, added respect for a man who I earned more and more respect for with each page and point completed as I read through this book - and that without knowing that he had lost his son in the war that he was railing against! Wow!
In any case, on with the review...
Bacevich starts off by pointing out that some historians called the Cold War the "Long Peace", and that following the September 11th attacks, the global war on terror that followed has become known in some circles as the "Long War". Americans had long gotten used to the United States being the world's lone remaining superpower, and they had gotten perhaps used to it being "the indispensible nation". According to this viewpoint, it was the leader of the world, presiding over a new era of what is commonly referred to as "globalization".
However, globalization, Bacevich says, "served as a euphemism for soft, or informal, empire. The collapse of he Soviet Union appeared to offer an opportunity to expand and perpetuate that empire, creating something akin to a global Pax Americana."
It is this soft, indirect empire that has become America's defining trait in the present age, he argues. But it is also the cost of maintaining this empire that has caused all sorts of problems and, in effect, has become simply too costly to bear.
This book essentially goes into detail about just how costly the price of empire has become, and he essentially challenges us to ask ourselves, individually and collectively, as a nation, whether or not the price is worth it. When we fight large wars like we did in Vietnam decades ago or, more recently what he calls "small wars" (by which he means wars not fought to defend the nation itself, but rather to exter some measure of control over other nations) like in Iraq and Afghanistan, far from highlighting America's military and political preeminence, we instead unwittingly highlight our weaknesses. We stretch ourselves too thin. Maybe, he argues, it could work if we still had a draft. But such a thought is simply not in keeping with American values these days, which tend to be more self-absorbed and not prone to individual sacrifices for a better nation. Plus, most people simply do not believe in the causes for these more limited war engagements enough to actually put themselves at risk, as millions of Americans did when facing enemies such as Hitler, Mussolini, and the "rising Sun" empire in Japan during World War II.
Bacevich explains that it was not in the interest of the Bush administration for people to sacrifice for the war effort, or really even to pay much attention, since it was not going as planned. Instead, it was desirable for people to get ever more caught up in what Bacevich believes truly drives Americans these days: consumption:
"While soldiers fought, people consumed. With the United States possessing less than 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves and Americans burning one out of every four barrels of petroleum produced worldwide, oil imports reached 60 percent of daily national requirements and kept rising. The personal savings rate continued to plummet. Collectively, Americans were now spending more than they earned."
Despite continual reminders about how America is a "nation at war" by the Bush administration, Americans back at home seemed almost entirely separated from the wars. On most other occasions, historically, there was some level of sacrifice, even for people back on the home front. But not when it came to these wars. "Given the extent to which a penchant for consumption had become the driveshaft of the global economy," Bacevich says, "the Bush administration welcomed the average citizen's inclination to ignore the war and return to the shopping mall. Yet once the Iraqi War demonstrated the shortcomings of shock-and-awe, there was no obvious way to reconfigure the empire of consumption into an empire of global liberation. In post-9/11 America, the young men and women rallying the colors could never reach more than a trickle. Few parents were eager to offer up their sons and daughters to fight Bush's war. The horrors of September 11 notwithstanding, most Americans subscribed to a limited-liability version of patriotism, one that emphasized the display of bumper stickers in preference to shouldering a rucksack."
America increasingly relied on the military to disguise whatever problems might face the nation. Since Reagan, Americans have felt that their military might, by necessity, has reached a level of invincibility, and tat the sky is the limit for what it can achieve. For that matter, every president since Reagan has used this to his own advantage. Bacevich goes on: "Every president since Reagan has exploited his role as commander in chief to expand on the imperial prerogatives of his office. Each has also relied on military power to conceal or manage problems that stemmed from the nation's habits of profligacy."
Yet, there were, and are, limits to American military might, and he points to some of the failings in recent conflicts, from the friction between Schwarzkopf and Powell during the First Gulf War, to the hyped up reports of the brilliance of military success in both Gulf Wars that proved illusory, including the genius of generals. Only after the fact did we learn that the truth was often considerably less flattering. Although Bacevich did not mention this specifically, I recall that the highly touted scud missiles of the First Gulf Wars were admitted to have been greatly exaggerated, and this was done, at least in part, as a sort of de facto promotion of the desired "Star Wars" missile defense program that many top notch hawkish government officials repeatedly tried to get. If anything, the greatly exaggerated reports of phenomenal American success that were eventually proven false by future inadequacies and even downright failures underscored and highlighted this limitation. America's military might be powerful, but it was not all powerful.
Without a draft, Bacevich argues, stretching our forces thin in order to fight wars with very specific intents (that is, to supply what he considers America's "empire of consumption", with oil specifically needed to keep the machine energized) is unrealistic and counterproductive in the long run. The wars justify the increased expenditures towards the military, and with more weapons that run on fuel, the need for more oil is increased that much more. Political candidates rely upon this cycle, which entrenches the cycle further still.
Bacevich seems to continually point to the Reagan years as, in effect, the turning point for the United States from a country that had enjoyed relative prosperity with more or less old-fashioned values that it had labored to maintain, and turned instead, increasingly, towards consumption and greed, which has proven catastrophic. Reagan was brilliant in lending credibility to what amounted to selfishness, making it sound like a responsible political doctrine and economic policy.
"Far more accurately than Jimmy Carter", Bacevich explains, "Reagan understood what made Americans tick: They wanted self-gratification, not self-denial. Although always careful to embroider his speeches with inspiration homilies and testimonials to old-fashioned virtues, Reagan mainly indulged American self-indulgence."
One of the keys to this was a reorganization of, and reliance upon, the American military, to make it not only powerful, but make it seem all powerful. With the continued emphasis on the aforementioned Star Wars program, Reagan perpetuated a myth "that the minimum requirements of U.S. security now required the United States to achieve a status akin to invulnerability; and second, that modern technology was bringing this seemingly utopian goal within reach. Star Wars, in short, introduced into mainstream politics the proposition that Americans could be truly safe only if the United States enjoyed something akin to permanent global military supremacy."
Once this illusion, or perhaps rather delusion, was firmly in place, it would not be long before America's "defense" began to be used increasingly for offense. In other words, that America would begin to start wars. Also, this did little to keep in check American prejudices and a sense of superiority, that "American exceptionalism" doctrine that so many subscribe to.
Bacevich continually refers back to the philosophy of Reinhold Niebuhr, and quite often quotes him to illustrate either a point he is making or about to make. In essence, Niebuhr spoke of what it takes for wise nations to survive by pursuing their own interest, while also arguing that a country that, in effect, loses sight of that and chooses instead another path is not looking out for itself, and this will prove to be to the detriment of that nation. Bacevich argues, essentially, that Americans desire to see themselves and the American nation as an exception to traditional rules and limitations of nations, based on the misleading impression and sense of entitlement that having long been a superpower with a high standard of living can bring. Thus, the nation has not been choosing policies wisely, and has essentially weakened it's own positioning in the process, compromising itself. Mostly, again, this is because they do not want to concede an inch on the notion of their being so exceptional.
Ultimately, what he argues is that our system simply is not working. Americans are increasingly unwilling to face up to reality, and political leaders are a reflection of this. They have attempted "to wish reality away. Policy makers have been engaged in a de facto Ponzi scheme intended to extend indefinitely the American line of credit. The fiasco of the Iraq War and the quasi-permanent US occupation of Afghanistan illustrate the results and prefigure what is yet to come if the crisis of American profligacy continues unabated."
In the end, however, he seems skeptical that Americans are actually going to choose another road, and seems to resign himself to the notion that Americans will continue to choose the endless wars and cycles that will continue to weaken it and undermine not only the strength of the nation, but the boasts of it being, indeed, of the very notion of "American exceptionalism" that keeps the vicious cycle going.
This almost unofficial crusade against militant and political Islam (often referred to here as Islamic fascism) simply does not make sense. American military involvement essentially fuels the anger and extremism in an already explosive region filled with tensions, and whenever there is some new violent protests, especially when these involve anti-American sentiments, this is turn fuels a militaristic outrage back home in the United States. Once again, we see a vicious cycle, and Bacevich argues that, perhaps, it is time to let this go.
American influence in the Islamic world will always "remain limited".
"By extension," Bacevich continues, "Americans ought to give up the presumptuous notion that they are called upon to tutor Muslims in matters related to freedom and the proper relationship between politics and religion. The principle informing policy should be this: Let Islam be Islam. In the end, Muslims will have to discover for themselves the shortcomings of political Islam, much as Russians discovered the defects of Marxism-Leninism and Chinese came to appreciate the flaws of Maoism - perhaps even as we ourselves will one day begin to recognize the snares embedded in American exceptionalism."
I can only hope that Americans might hear what Bacevich has to say. But the political dialogue in the nation tends to be loud (and increasingly crass). it is hard to imagine that the finer, more subtle points that Bacevich makes in this book might actually be heard above the loud political machinery. But one can always hope.
Of course, it does not hurt if people actually read a book that is this well-written. it is perhaps provocative, and will challenge many people's long held (and perhaps also long cherished) beliefs and, yes (let's call a spade a spade) prejudices. But it also might awaken a more realistic sense of America's place in the world, and allow them to recognize, as the title suggest, the limits of their power. By stepping back and taking a more detached, realistic notion, we may actually shed the skin of that false patriotism that encourages us to dream "heroic dreams", as Reagan once said, and try to impose our sense of superiority upon the rest of the world, and choose instead a more balanced and responsible patriotism that may allow us to finally understand our place in the world community as a whole, and to wake up from our dreams of grandeur in time to recognize the grim reality that blind faith in this belief has led us to. It starts with people waking up, and Bacevich's book certainly makes an eloquent, yet factual, appeal towards this end.
Bacevich makes strong points both subtle and direct in this work, which is well written, yet accessible. I, for one, highly recommend it for any American, or even anyone wishing to understand what is happening in the United States presently, in order to better appreciate it's policies and political thinking in relation to the rest of the world. You can probably get it from your local library. Failing that, it is affordable (you can get it for peanuts on some internet sites, like Amazon or Ebay - not to sound like I'm pushing consumption myself, but just sayin'), and can truly change your way of seeing American policy, and it's overall place in the world, which you cannot put a price tag on. This really is a phenomenal book, and a must read!
Here are some links to some additional reviews of this book that I thought might be helpful to anyone still perhaps on the fence about
http://us.macmillan.com/thelimitsofpower/AndrewBacevich
Interview and review by Bill Moyers:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/8/20/the_limits_of_power_andrew_bacevich
No comments:
Post a Comment