What do you think?
State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America's Empire
A masterful account of how sixty years of American militarism created the Cold War, fanned decades of unnecessary conflict, helped to fuel Islamist terror, and threatens to bankrupt the country.
For most of the twentieth century, the sword has led before the olive branch in American foreign policy. In eye-opening fashion, State vs. Defense shows how America truly operates as a superpower and explores the constant tension between the diplomats at State and the warriors at Defense.
State vs. Defense characterizes all the great figures who crafted American foreign policy, from George Marshall to Robert McNamara to Henry Kissinger to Don Rumsfeld with this underlying America has become increasingly imperial and militaristic.
Take, for example, the Pentagon, which as of 2010, acknowledged the concentration of 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees inside 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories. The price of America’s military-base network overseas, along with the expense of its national security state at home, is enormous. The bill comes in at well over $1 trillion. That is equal to nearly 8 percent of GDP and more than 20 percent of the federal budget. (By comparison, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, the five countries Pentagon planners routinely trot out as conventional threats to the national well-being, have a cumulative security budget of just over $200 billion.) Quietly, gradually—and inevitably, given the weight of its colossal budget and imperial writ—the Pentagon has all but eclipsed the State Department at the center of U.S. foreign policy.
In the tradition of classics such as The Wise Men, The Best and the Brightest, and Legacy of Ashes , State vs. Defense explores how and why American leaders succumbed to the sirens of militarism, how the republic has been lost to an empire, and how “the military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower so famously forewarned has set us on a stark path of financial peril.
For most of the twentieth century, the sword has led before the olive branch in American foreign policy. In eye-opening fashion, State vs. Defense shows how America truly operates as a superpower and explores the constant tension between the diplomats at State and the warriors at Defense.
State vs. Defense characterizes all the great figures who crafted American foreign policy, from George Marshall to Robert McNamara to Henry Kissinger to Don Rumsfeld with this underlying America has become increasingly imperial and militaristic.
Take, for example, the Pentagon, which as of 2010, acknowledged the concentration of 190,000 troops and 115,000 civilian employees inside 909 military facilities in 46 countries and territories. The price of America’s military-base network overseas, along with the expense of its national security state at home, is enormous. The bill comes in at well over $1 trillion. That is equal to nearly 8 percent of GDP and more than 20 percent of the federal budget. (By comparison, China, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea, the five countries Pentagon planners routinely trot out as conventional threats to the national well-being, have a cumulative security budget of just over $200 billion.) Quietly, gradually—and inevitably, given the weight of its colossal budget and imperial writ—the Pentagon has all but eclipsed the State Department at the center of U.S. foreign policy.
In the tradition of classics such as The Wise Men, The Best and the Brightest, and Legacy of Ashes , State vs. Defense explores how and why American leaders succumbed to the sirens of militarism, how the republic has been lost to an empire, and how “the military-industrial complex” that Eisenhower so famously forewarned has set us on a stark path of financial peril.
496 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 5, 2011
I agree with the previous reviewer's criticisms that the book could have been more nuanced and should have given more of a sense of the "State" side of the story. Glain focuses on the militarization of American foreign affairs (and its history) but gives only statistics and a few anecdotes to show the "de-diplomizing" of affairs. I would have liked to see the subject a bit more as it appears to those working on the "other side". Those statistics and anecdotes are indeed frightening:
“Taxpayers currently spend twelve dollars on national defense for every dollar they invest in diplomacy.” 414
“In fact, the combatant commands are already the putative epicenters for security, diplomatic, humanitarian, and commercial affairs in their regions.” 350
[General John Shalikasvili, Powell’s successor as JCS chairman] “’What we are doing to our diplomatic capabilities is criminal. By slashing them, we are less able to avoid disasters such as Somalia and Kosovo, and there we will be obliged to use military force still more//often.’” 357
“Taxpayers currently spend twelve dollars on national defense for every dollar they invest in diplomacy.” 414
“In fact, the combatant commands are already the putative epicenters for security, diplomatic, humanitarian, and commercial affairs in their regions.” 350
[General John Shalikasvili, Powell’s successor as JCS chairman] “’What we are doing to our diplomatic capabilities is criminal. By slashing them, we are less able to avoid disasters such as Somalia and Kosovo, and there we will be obliged to use military force still more//often.’” 357
October 11, 2011
This is a decent book that could have been great. The premise is wonderful and confronts one of the major foreign policy issues of our day. Today foreign policy is most often conducted by military, not the State department which is supposed to run it. The author's approach to explaining this is why I give it three stars.
The first issues is that the State side is barely ever mentioned. There is a section about Sen. Helms gutting the Foreign Service and USAID, but for the most part, the State Department itself goes unmentioned. There is some talk about Secretary of States, but mostly just if the individual is war like or a voice of calm in a militarist storm.
The focus on militarists, rather than militarism is another issue I have with the book. Glain keeps pointing the finger at the likes of Paul Nitze, Walt Rostow and Richard Perle as genius evil puppet masters who it seems singlehandedly put the United States on a track to the use of military power above all else in foreign affairs.
There is so much more that goes into it, political culture, strategic culture, history, bureaucratic politics...all of the things that have pushed the United States on a path to militarism. The militarists are a serious problem and you should be careful when listening to their arguments, as they nearly always call for the use of force or coercion. That is not to say that the use of force or coercion are always wrong, they just aren't always right.
There is also the problem of a regrettable lack of nuance. As far as the reader can tell, the Soviets could rarely if ever appear threatening, motives are nearly always bad and people are failures.
There is still good reason to read the book though. Highlighting terrible times like the near war of 1983, discussing the rise of the combatant commands and the decline of ambassadorships, reframing the Cold War as militarism, all are good things. Just don't take everything you read at face value.
The first issues is that the State side is barely ever mentioned. There is a section about Sen. Helms gutting the Foreign Service and USAID, but for the most part, the State Department itself goes unmentioned. There is some talk about Secretary of States, but mostly just if the individual is war like or a voice of calm in a militarist storm.
The focus on militarists, rather than militarism is another issue I have with the book. Glain keeps pointing the finger at the likes of Paul Nitze, Walt Rostow and Richard Perle as genius evil puppet masters who it seems singlehandedly put the United States on a track to the use of military power above all else in foreign affairs.
There is so much more that goes into it, political culture, strategic culture, history, bureaucratic politics...all of the things that have pushed the United States on a path to militarism. The militarists are a serious problem and you should be careful when listening to their arguments, as they nearly always call for the use of force or coercion. That is not to say that the use of force or coercion are always wrong, they just aren't always right.
There is also the problem of a regrettable lack of nuance. As far as the reader can tell, the Soviets could rarely if ever appear threatening, motives are nearly always bad and people are failures.
There is still good reason to read the book though. Highlighting terrible times like the near war of 1983, discussing the rise of the combatant commands and the decline of ambassadorships, reframing the Cold War as militarism, all are good things. Just don't take everything you read at face value.
January 9, 2018
2013-07 – State vs. Defense: The Battle to Define America's Empire. 2011. 496 pages
May 6, 2014
I don't have the knowledge or the expertise to review this book on the merits or on the facts, so I'm not even going to try. For the most part, due to my world & political views, I tend to agree with every point this author is making about the disparity between the State and Defense Departments. I agree that for too long this country has let it's military define our global footprint and I think it's time for the State Department to start doing it's job again. Despite my inclination to to agree with the state purpose of the book, I'm afraid that I walked away from it with a sour taste in my mouth.
What I did not like was the tone the author chose to take in discussing the subject. I didn't like the obvious contempt the author has for many of the people he talks about in the book, it's contempt that I may share, but I don't think it's necessarily helpful. Anyone who is coming at this book from the opposite point of view is not going to take it seriously. They are, wrongly in my opinion, going to look at this is a work of the "liberal media" and dismiss it. They won't take it seriously, something which I think this subject needs. I think the tone did a disservice to the book, one that was avoidable. I would have much preferred a book that laid out the facts, with no judgements made, in order for the reader to make up their own mind.
I do think this is an important look at the players involved and the decisions that have been made in order for us to get to this point in our history. The State Department has been sidelined too many times for the political or financial gain of those involved in the decision making. I do think it's time that we allow the diplomatic community to take the reigns once again. I just hope that this book, despite it's flaws, gets the idea across to enough people.
What I did not like was the tone the author chose to take in discussing the subject. I didn't like the obvious contempt the author has for many of the people he talks about in the book, it's contempt that I may share, but I don't think it's necessarily helpful. Anyone who is coming at this book from the opposite point of view is not going to take it seriously. They are, wrongly in my opinion, going to look at this is a work of the "liberal media" and dismiss it. They won't take it seriously, something which I think this subject needs. I think the tone did a disservice to the book, one that was avoidable. I would have much preferred a book that laid out the facts, with no judgements made, in order for the reader to make up their own mind.
I do think this is an important look at the players involved and the decisions that have been made in order for us to get to this point in our history. The State Department has been sidelined too many times for the political or financial gain of those involved in the decision making. I do think it's time that we allow the diplomatic community to take the reigns once again. I just hope that this book, despite it's flaws, gets the idea across to enough people.
April 3, 2016
State vs. Defense is a history of the era from WWII to the present day focused on the increasing militarization of foreign policy. Glain is intentionally provocative and the rhetoric begins to marr his arguments as we reach more recent days. Despite that, it was an unusual take on the history of the national security state that is rarely aired.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews