This book is about what the author calls “the New American Militarism” - the misleading and dangerous conceptions of war, soldiers, and military institutions that have come to subvert the American consciousness and perverted present-day U.S national security policy.. Andrew Bacevich comes from a moderately conservative background and his book will not please everyone regardless of his or her political ideology.
Readers cannot understand the author’s thesis unless they understand the context in which he defines ‘militarism.’ Bacevich notes that there is a four-part definition of militarism:
1. The spirit and tendencies of the professional soldier.
2. The prevalence of military sentiments or ideals among a people.
3. The political condition characterized by the predominance of the military class in government or administration.
4. The tendency to regard military efficiency as the paramount interest of the state.
His view is that the new American Militarism conforms to the last three parts of the above definition except that the present day military class is not limited to professional soldiers. The “military class” in Washington is today comprised of those who are not themselves serving soldiers. They are instead politicians, civil servants, journalist, and hangers-on who possess a militaristic mindset and worldview despite no desire to serve in the military themselves. There is another element Bacevich points out “the belief or desire of a government or people that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interest”.
Bacevich makes his thesis very clear when he notes, “the argument offered here asserts that present-day militarism has deep roots in the American past.” It is bipartisan in nature and not likely to disappear any time soon.” [Soon being 2005]. He notes that “Of all the enemies of public liberty,” wrote James Madison in 1795, “war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Bacevich invites Americans to read his book and consider the continued relevance of Madison’s warning to our own time.
He warns that a new and dangerous obsession has taken hold of so many Americans, conservatives, and liberals alike. It is the joining of militarism to utopian ideology – of unmatched military power to a blind faith in sort of a manifest destiny of American values expanded from conquering a continent to an international scale. Bacevich argues that this obsession with militarism commits Americans to a futile enterprise, turning the U.S. into a crusader state, not in strictly religious terms, but with a self-proclaimed destiny of driving history to its final destination: the worldwide embrace of the American way of life. He claims that this attitude invites endless war and increasing militarization of U.S. foreign policy that promises to pervert American ideals and to expedite the demise of American democracy. This obsession will alienate others in the international community, and it will isolate America leading to moral and economic bankruptcy.
Strengths and Weaknesses of his arguments:
He notes that several decades after Vietnam, and a century filled with evidence of the limited use of armed force and the dangers in over reliance on military power, WE THE PEOPLE have convinced ourselves that our best prospect for safety and salvation lies with the sword. Today (2005) “global power projection” which implies use of unlimited military power has become the norm. Bacevich asserts that such a norm demands critical reexamination. Pointing to “the surprises, disappointments, painful losses, and woeful, even shameful failures of the Iraq War”, he makes clear the need to rethink the fundamentals of U.S. military policy. He points out however that any realistic reexamination requires a change in the American attitude, “seeing war and America’s relationship to war in a fundamentally different way”. (p. 208)
The most significant strength of his book is that he offers solutions worth debating. He offers ten fundamental principles to change our present-day infatuation with militarism. Below is a summary:
1. Heeding the intentions of the Founders found in the Constitution. Instead of politicians making a pretense of reverence for the Constitution, they need to heed it. Nothing in the Constitution commits or even encourages the U.S. to employ military might to save the rest of humankind or remake the world in our image. Instead, the Preamble states intent “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
2. Revitalizing the concept of separation of powers is the remedy to the above violation of the spirit of the Constitution. Bacevich argues the push for expanding America’s security perimeter has come from the executive branch. He notes that the problem is not that the presidency has become too strong, but that Congress has continuously failed to fulfill its constitutional responsibility for deciding when and if the U.S. should undertake military action abroad.
3. Renunciation of the doctrine of preventive war and viewing force as a last resort.
In its place, Bacevich argues that the U.S. should return to a declaratory foreign policy more consistent with our own moral and religious traditions, respect for international law, and common sense.
4. Enhancing U.S. strategic self-sufficiency by taking serious steps to limit the extent to which we are dependent on foreign resources (oil) reducing pressures to intervene abroad on behalf of material interests. Bacevich dedicates a whole chapter to Blood for Oil.
5. Reorganizing U.S. forces clearly for national defense rather than military power projection, which requires abandoning the concept of “national security” a holdover from the Cold War. Our current concept of national security justifies everything from selectively overthrowing foreign governments to armed intervention in places that most Americans cannot find on a map.
6. Devising an appropriate gauge for determining the level of U.S. defense spending to decide how much is enough given the absence of a great power adversary? Our only potential adversaries are China and Russia. However, Russia now lacks the ability to project military power. China on the other hand has the numbers in ground forces to give us a ground war challenge, but also seriously lacks any serious capability to project military power. Despite the age of our Navy and Air Force, neither Russia nor China possess the technology or large number of aircraft carriers and transport planes we have.
7. Searching for ways to enhance alternative instruments of statecraft that emphasize diplomacy over use of military force. A renewed doctrine viewing military power as a last resort will increase our emphasis on soft power. What he calls “the ability to influence rather than merely coerce and to build…rather than demolish”. Diplomacy, as the mismanaged occupation of Iraq has shown, is a skill that the U.S. has undervalued and remains grossly deficient. (p. 215)
8. Reviving the concept of the citizen-soldier as the Founders intended it to be. The anti-military spirit that flourished some three decades ago gave birth to the All Volunteer Force (AVF). In light of grossly over stretching the AVF and exploitation of the Reserves and National Guard augmented by private contractors like Blackwater and KBR the AVF requires a critical and realistic second look. Unless an Empire is preferred over an American democracy, beware of the direction the AVF is being taken and exploited. One way that a republic safeguards itself against militarism is to ensure that the army has deep roots among the people. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld dismissed the citizen-soldiers [draftees] of the pre-AVF era as “adding no value, no advantage…to the U.S. armed services”. (p. 219) According to Rumsfeld, “rotating large numbers of citizens through the military had been more trouble than it was worth”. (p. 219) Bacevich notes that at the time Rumsfeld gave his opinion of draftees uniformed military leaders filled with a narrowly practical view of recruitment and retention tended to share Rumsfeld’s views.
Remember this is the same Rumsfeld who callously responded to ill-equipped “volunteer” troops concerned for their lives due to lack of adequately armored vehicles, and I quote, “"You go to war with the Army you have not the Army you might want or wish to have. You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and a tank can [still] be blown up.” Fox news reported that the “same applies to the much smaller Humvee utility vehicles that, without extra armor, are highly vulnerable to the insurgents' weapon of choice in Iraq, the improvised explosive device that is a roadside threat to Army convoys and patrols.” http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/12/08/rumsfeld-grilled-by-troops/
Bacevich argues that “in terms of race, region, religion, and ethnicity, but above all in terms of [socioeconomic] class [our] armed services should-as they once did, at least in a rough way – mirror [our] society. He does not call for a return to the draft because that is politically incorrect and unrealistic. He believes that “creating mechanisms that will reawaken in privileged America a willingness to serve as those who are less privileged already do.” (p. 219) He then goes onto offer a list of such incentives directed at the American elite such as shorter enlistments, more generous signing bonuses, greater flexibility in retirement options, the forgiveness of college loans upon completion of a term of service, and passage of a new GI Bill that on principle ties federal education grants to citizen service. Bluntly put citizens who defend the country should get a free college education; those who prefer not to serve in the military ought to pay their own way.” (p. 220)
Bacevich claims that persuading a few sons and daughters of the elite to serve in the military will elevate the risk of domestic opposition if interventions go awry, forcing presidents to exercise greater caution in making decisions that put other people’s sons and daughters at risk in the first place. He also notes that given the decreasing number of military veterans in Congress, a few military veterans who are members of the elite (meaning primarily those who can afford to run for elective office) may take their places in Congress. Veterans from the privileged class may also become editors of newspapers and journals of opinion, and heads of major institutions. Their voices will help to counter unrealistic expectations about what outcome and costs of wars could be.
Although good points, even having a significant number of military veterans in Congress will not change very much that our government does militarily. Although not a very significant number, look at how many members of Congress over the past century or so have been veterans of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and even a few (very few) Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans. What impact have they had on changing the direction our country is going? Their influence has been minimal to insignificant.
Returning to the draft is more realistic. What he calls for is simply unrealistic. When this book was written in 2005, the Army was having the most difficulty getting volunteers. Their response was to lower enlistment standards. The Army did offer selective enlistment and reenlistment bonuses, and the use of stop loss to retain soldiers eligible for separation or retirement on combat duty as long as the Army could legally get away with it. Lastly, the most privileged of us will do everything possible to get themselves, or their family members, out of any such obligation of American citizenship regardless if we have a draft or not. Using lessons learned about what ways and means the elite used to get out of serving in Vietnam, instead of fearing the draft, we must return to it with best efforts to plug the loopholes the privileged will certainly again use to get out of serving. The Selective Service law has already gone a long way towards plugging those gaps. In fact, we would expect that given the Vietnam draft experience most opposition would come solely from the left of center, but reality is that most opposition would come from the right of center with the American elite leading the way. The latest reports from the Selective Service System (SSS) state that due to funding cuts, if there should be a draft the SSS fears it could not ensure equity, so inequality of a military draft is a reality that must be dealt with.
9. Reexamining the role of the National Guard and Reserves will revive the traditional concept of the citizen-soldier as our founding fathers intended in the U.S. Constitution. Bacevich notes that since the end of the Cold War, and especially since 9/11, federal authorities have increasingly called upon [exploited] these part-timers to serve as a quasi-full-time backup for the ever-lengthening roster of expeditions that regulars start but prove unable to finish. The Pentagon increased the use of “tens of thousands of reservists [and National Guard units] have been pressed into service to fight the insurgents opposing the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.” (p. 220) His solution is to return reservists, especially those serving in the ground components of the National Guard, to their original purpose – a trained militia kept in readiness as the primary instruments for community self-defense. The Guard must only be for the defense of Kansas and Iowa not Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
10. Reconciliation of our military profession to American society in order to root the army of our republic with the society it serves. This is especially true for any military officer corps that finds itself being isolated and feeling superior to the society it serves.
Lastly, he deals with a very ironic and controversial aspect of the New American Militarism - Evangelical Christian attitudes towards militarism.
Bacevich dedicates a whole chapter (Chapter 5 – Onward - I believe is a reference to Onward Christian Soldiers (p. 122 – 146)) in which he expresses caution about the influence of evangelicals, and their relationship to the U.S. military. There is already enough media coverage to confirm that there are serious concerns about this situation. One needs to simply Google “Proselytizing in the U.S. Military” to see that numerous complaints have been made against chaplains for mandatory prayers, coercion, and using government money to promote Evangelical Christianity. Interests groups of atheist and other non-believers have been created "outside" the active military establishment to oppose Christian religious proselytizing within the military while right-wing Evangelical groups have been created to defend "Christian" religious freedom inside the active military with the Pentagon caught in the middle. Both opposing groups appear to be more political in nature than religious.
- Amazon Business : For business-only pricing, quantity discounts and FREE Shipping. Register a free business account
