American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy

by Bacevich

In a challenging, provocative book, Andrew Bacevich reconsiders the assumptions and purposes governing the exercise of American global power. Examining the presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton--as well as George W. Bush's first year in office--he demolishes the view that the United States has failed to devise a replacement for containment as a basis for foreign policy. He finds instead that successive post-Cold War administrations have adhered to a well-defined "strategy of openness." Motivated by the imperative of economic expansionism, that strategy aims to foster an open and integrated international order, thereby perpetuating the undisputed primacy of the world's sole remaining superpower. Moreover, openness is not a new strategy, but has been an abiding preoccupation of policymakers as far back as Woodrow Wilson.

Although based on expectations that eliminating barriers to the movement of trade, capital, and ideas nurtures not only affluence but also democracy, the aggressive pursuit of openness has met considerable resistance. To overcome that resistance, U.S. policymakers have with increasing frequency resorted to force, and military power has emerged as never before as the preferred instrument of American statecraft, resulting in the progressive militarization of U.S. foreign policy.

Neither indictment nor celebration, American Empire sees the drive for openness for what it is--a breathtakingly ambitious project aimed at erecting a global imperium. Large questions remain about that project's feasibility and about the human, financial, and moral costs that it will entail. By penetrating the illusions obscuring the reality of U.S. policy, this book marks an essential first step toward finding the answers.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, American History, International Relations, American, War

312 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2002

Reviews

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good. Written just after 9/11, the author presents a detailed and convincing argument that contrary to popular opinion among pundits and the claims of politicians of America's two major parties, American foreign policy has been consistent for generations and has never been what American leaders claimed (or admitted) it was.

His thesis is that America spent most of the 19th and 20th centuries building a 'soft' empire, one consisting of dominated markets for American business rather than outright colonies, and that when America's government said it was acting to defend freedom and protect oppressed peoples (as in the Spanish-American War, both World Wars, and nearly all other uses of force during that period) it was actually acting to gain or protect those markets, and that the openness and freedom spoken of are actually thinly disguised code words for freedom for American businesses to monopolize or dominate those places.

He relates how military force has been used over and over for this purpose, but increasingly after Vietnam only in ways that complied with the American public's pressure to minimize or completely avoid American military casualties by employing either high-tech long-range weapons like cruise missiles or getting others to do the up-close and bloody fighting for us, e.g. the Northern Alliance in the first phase of the Afghan War (the only phase that had taken place when the author wrote this book.) He calls this the 'gunboats and Ghurkas' approach, harking back to 'gunboat diplomacy' and the British Empire's extensive use of its Ghurka troops. He could just as easily have used the French Foreign Legion as an analogue.

Bacevich is no liberal; he forthrightly describes himself as a lifelong conservative, and is a retired senior U.S. Army officer. However, he found himself unable to draw any other conclusions from the mountain of evidence at which he looked, and in this book (which became the first of a series he has written over the last decade or so) he called it as he saw it.

My only disappointment, and the reason I gave it 4 stars rather than 5, is his overconfident estimation of the American people's ongoing unwillingness to serve in uniform, to engage in hard and prolonged fighting, and to take casualties. The Iraq War (misguided and unnecessary as it was) and the continuation of the Afghan War showed that he was mistaken there.

I strongly recommend this for anyone interested the realpolitik behind the pious speeches and troop deployments.

[Public Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was a real chore to finish. It's not that I disagreed with the author, I don't. Perhaps the biggest problem with this book is when it came out, early 2002. The author was able to include some of the earliest reactions to 9-11, but overall this book hasn't aged very well.

[William Gregory · Rating 3 out of 5]

There are better books on American Empire than the book ‘American Empire’. A better title could have focused on the books actual main topic, how the American empire navigated the post-Cold War decade through continuity of its foreign policy of pursuing ‘openness’. Seeing increases in militarism after the fall of its superpower rival, the US engaged with the post-Cold War world as a virtually unchallenged power. Pursuit of fair trade, the threatening of so-called ‘rogue states’ with invasion, and a strong commitment to promote technologies that would expedite trends of globalisation demonstrates how a Cold War ‘victory’ led to an increase, not an easing up of American imperial policy.

[Donald Linnemeyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well-written and remarkable balanced given the subject matter. Bacevich offers a convincing narrative of American foreign policy as very purposeful expansion of empire. He's former military, and he knows his stuff, yet he remains level-headed through the narrative, avoiding outlandish conspiracy theories or passionate appeals to emotion to bolster his case. He simply sticks to modern politicians' own articulation of American goals in foreign policy, which is refreshing compared to some of the other materials on the subject.

My only complaint would be that I got a little tangled up in the chronology of things, as he went back and forth between certain Republican and Democratic presidents (mainly Clinton and Bush) to illustrate how similar their ideological underpinnings were. Interesting point, but I got a bit lost a times. Though to be fair, I did read this book pretty quickly, so it's probably mostly my fault.

[FellowBibliophile KvK · Rating 1 out of 5]

Covers several wars but is thinly endnoted in contrast to Colonel Edward Westermann's Hitler's Ostkrieg and The Indian Wars , which covers only two wars, and Rudolf von Ribbentrop's My Father Joachim von Ribbentrop and Mark Mazower's Inside Hitler's Greece , both of which cover only ONE war. Moreover, this book contains zero archival references and zero letters in the references, which are overwhelmingly newspaper articles and speeches.

This suggests that Bacevich is a lazy historian who goes after the low-hanging fruit. Then again, this is perhaps to be expected as a result of the unfortunate and entirely opportunistic and messy blending of history (i.e., what Colonel Westermann and Mark Mazower do and what Rudolf von Ribbentrop did even though he was just trying to write a memoir) and political "science."

[Steve45 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extremely important work on American empire from a conservative realist perspective. Bacevich has been proven prescient on the consequences of American hubris and empire building over the years since this was originally published.

[Ian Divertie · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was written after 9/11 and before we invaded Iraq in April 2003. If we had followed this books advice much today in 2017 would be different. I read this book quite a while ago and specifically marked Chapter 8, Different Drummers, Same Drum and its follow up Chapter which I marked as of lesser significance titled, War for the Imperium. Richard Haass author of "Disarray" and chairman of the CFR, labels Bacevich as a revisionist, but I'm sure in January 2017 they both agree on the direction of current events. Andrew Bacevich in this book says we need to carefully think about our future as our hubris is a tremendous temptation that will lead us into monumental temptation that may have dire outcomes. Missed opportunities. Andrew Bacevich can be either addressed as Colonel or Professor. He is a U.S Army graduate of West Point and a Viet Nam veteran. Currently, he is Professor of International Relations and Director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University. During the Commander in Chiefs Town Hall televised in the Fall of 2016 in which Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton took questions from a panel of experts on Foreign Affairs and Military Policy, Professor or Col. Bacevich was a member of the questioning panel. Maybe our most brilliant thinker on Foreign Policy today. If you have not read one of his books I urge you to do so. Read today, in 2017, this book "American Empire" will make you weep. If only we had listened to Professor or Col. Bacrevich back then in 2002.

[Bob Mobley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent book. Well worth reading. Given what is happening in Syria, Iraq, Iran, Egypt, and Tunesia, Andrew Bacevich's insightful, informed and pragmatic examination of U.S. diplomacy is timely, frightening, and raises serious questions relating to the competency, crediblity and integrity of our politicians and our foreign policies. To call American Empire a "wake-up" read is probably not strong enough a statement. I call it a desperately needed examination of events and decisions in order to save this country from its own demise as a nation. We are imperiling our nation's future, and in doing so, run the risk of destroying the Republic.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Those interested in foreign policy will likely get much from this, but those not interested in foreign policy should avoid it. Bacevich makes the case that American foreign policy since the Cold War has persisted in enhancing America's power and influence in an imperial fashion, despite the mixed political make-up of its presidents in that period. The political criticisms have been largely superficial, while substantively both parties have shared agendas. This is an interesting account of America's foreign policy from 1989-2001. But it is definitely not for everyone.

[Alice · Rating 4 out of 5]

Other than an odd chapter that seeks to shred General Wesley Clark, this book is lucid and compelling. Starting out with the theories posited by two long-forgotten American historians, Bacevich traces the rise of America's imperial problem. Whether acquired purposefully or not, Bacevich says, we have it and we must now decide what to do with it. High recommend.

[Patrick Anderson · Rating 3 out of 5]

A thoughtful walk through 90s foreign policy viewing the post cold war decade through the lens of a single coherent foreign policy that was obfuscated from the public by political posturing. Bacevich makes convincing arguments but on the whole the book is a little dry and the mid 00's expansion of the war on terror has reinforced some points but in weakened others.

[Jack D. Riner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bacevich describes current American historiography as the "myth of the reluctant superpower."

He rehabilitates Charles Austin Beard of all people. Who would have thought a reexamination of him all these years later would prove so insightful.

A thought provoking book.

[Rodger Payne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I especially enjoyed the chapter on gunboats and Gurkhas.

Some parts of the argument now seem strained -- was G.W. Bush really just continuing a consensus foreign policy from the prior Bush/Clinton years?

[Sopo]

want to read

[Charles Cowherd · Rating 4 out of 5]

I finished this just as I was graduating from VMI

[Zarathustra Goertzel · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty good, well-written book on modern US policy.

I'm glad I read about the US's wars from 1989-2011 first though.

[Mat Domaradzki · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting book that helped me better understand America's foreign policy and how the military has shaped it/been shaped by it.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great.