The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism

by Andrew J. Bacevich

From an acclaimed conservative historian and former military officer, a bracing call for a pragmatic confrontation with the nation's problems

The Limits of Power identifies a profound triple crisis facing America: the economy, in remarkable disarray, can no longer be fixed by relying on expansion abroad; the government, transformed by an imperial presidency, is a democracy in form only; U.S. involvement in endless wars, driven by a deep infatuation with military power, has been a catastrophe for the body politic. These pressing problems threaten all of us, Republicans and Democrats. If the nation is to solve its predicament, it will need the revival of a distinctly American approach: the neglected tradition of realism.

Andrew J. Bacevich, uniquely respected across the political spectrum, offers a historical perspective on the illusions that have governed American policy since 1945. The realism he proposes includes respect for power and its limits; sensitivity to unintended consequences; aversion to claims of exceptionalism; skepticism of easy solutions, especially those involving force; and a conviction that the books will have to balance. Only a return to such principles, Bacevich argues, can provide common ground for fixing America's urgent problems before the damage becomes irreparable.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, History, American History, Political Science, War, Military Fiction

224 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 5, 2008

About the author

Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of colonel. He is the author of Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism and The New American Militarism. His writing has appeared in Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. He holds a Ph.D. in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University, and taught at West Point and Johns Hopkins University prior to joining the faculty at Boston University in 1998. He is the recipient of a Lannan Award and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

http://us.macmillan.com/author/andrew...

Reviews

[Doug · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent read if you are interested in US politics as it relates to the US' place in the world. The author is a former military officer, and not really "liberal" nor "conservative." The viewpoint expounded in the book might be considered radical by the woefully uninformed average American citizen. However, I found it to be not so radical compared to another of my favorite political authors, Noam Chomsky. The main point of the book is that the US as a nation has been consuming more than we can afford for many years, and has been following a foreign policy based on the assumption that military force will allow us to reshape the world to our liking, so that we can continue this consumption.

I found the book to be very logical and straightforward, and generally free of rhetoric. Explanations offered are well-reasoned, clear, and often insightful. Highly recommended.

[Daniel · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is not the easiest book to read because Bacevich aims a magnifying glass at the current status quo in the United States and deconstructs the historic context that explains how we have become a people so accustomed to living beyond our means who refuse to make sacrifices or do without. He introduces the teaching of the theologian Reinhold Neibuhr who had the foresight during the Cold War to see that America's love of excess would eventually be her undoing.

Throughout this book, Bacevich weaves the historical, political, and cultural streams that have led us to our current policy of preemptive war and crippling debt. It's not a joyful book to read because it calls us take that same magnifying glass to our lives and take accountability for our actions and glaring omissions like holding our elected official accountable for the direction of our country.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

America has unrealistic foreign policy objectives, and is relying far too much on military power to achieve them. While this idea is not new, this book avoids the usual conspiracy theories such as the evil people in charge, or the Capitalism is the Problem, that normally ride along with this type of analysis. Ultimate responsibility is instead placed on the American people and their culture. That is the meaning of “American Exceptionalism” in the sub-title.

The book examines three pillars of American society: economic, political and military. Over the past half century the American economy has shifted from being a producer with a surplus to being a deficit-ridden consumer, dependent on others. Military spending is responsible for only part of the problem.

Politically he claims that America is no longer a real democracy, with power now concentrated in an imperial presidency and an unaccountable federal bureaucracy. The military and security establishment are so large and complex that they are beyond anyone’s control, including the president and congress.

The military record stands for itself. While the armed forces are capable, most campaigns fail to achieve their objectives. Iraq is only the latest and most obvious example. Military power is used much too often.

But the problems in these three areas are driven by the changing values of the underlying culture. Freedom has come to mean the right to an ever increasing standard of living, or ever increasing government services, depending on one’s politics. This leads to favoring consumption over production (cheap imports), and increasing debt. It also requires a reliable source of cheap oil, requiring America’s control over the Middle East to keep the oil flowing. Americans have always considered themselves exceptional, but this has come to mean an almost divine responsibility to police the whole world.

How much of this should I believe? I think he is mostly right to neglect corporate interests. Some earlier military interventions were done for the benefit of the United Fruit Company, but who is really responsible for oil driven imperialism – the oil companies or the consumers who demand their product? The same consumers who will throw out of office any politicians who fail to deliver it. While he complains of the lack of democracy, he also notes that politicians selling the American Dream (and cheap oil) tend to get elected. Ronald Reagan defeated the restraint minded Jimmy Carter in a landslide.

The best way to test a thesis is by its predictions. This book was written while Barack Obama was still running for president, yet he predicts exactly what has happened through the eight years of his presidency. Little has changed on the military and security front.

The book is well written, and raises important issues. I recommend it.

[Elizabeth Bruce · Rating 5 out of 5]

Extraordinary. Brilliant. Prophetic indictment of the house of cards and hubris that is American exceptionalism. Unflinching and stunningly articulate analysis of the structural flaws in the dominant American narrative.

[Mehrsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't think I was the audience for this book, which as far as I could tell was "conservative hawks." While I mainly agree with the point about U.S. military conceit and misunderstanding of the middle east quagmire, I think it was fairly obvious points--especially those familiar with the region.

[Dan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bacevich wrote this book as G. W. Bush was just completing his presidency. His main thesis is that the history of the US is that freedom and abundance go together. He asserts that since the founding of our country, we have associated freedom with at least the hope of having abundant goods.

In 1979 Jimmy Carter suggested that the US was in a crisis due to a growing self-indulgence and consumption. Carter called on Americans to consume less, use less oil, and be prepared to sacrifice to get our country back on track. His warning was not well-received and contributed to losing his re-election bid. Reagan and subsequent presidents rejected Carter's warning and in fact told Americans they should spend more to get the economy going.

In 2001 Donald Rumsfeld said that either we must change the way we live (reduce our oil consumption) or change the way they (people of the Persian Gulf who controlled their oil reserves) live; he said we choose the latter. Subsequently the US has increasingly taken the view that it will be free only if it can dominate those countries that are interfering with our abundance.

Throughout its history US politicians have held that the US is exceptional. It has a special place in history and, to some, a special place in God's favor. Bacevich says that in order for the US to get back on a sound economical basis we must give up the view that the US is exceptional. Rather than attempting to unilaterally force the rest of the world to submit to our demands for abundance, we need to learn to lead by negotiation.

Bacevich provides food for thought that would provide a good basis for discussion and debate.

[Ed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Written by a true conservative, ex-military officer and current Boston University professor, this book concisely explains how the actions of citizens, government and the military over the last 45 years have pushed the U.S into the position it finds itself in today.

In the Chapter titled "The Crisis of Profligacy", Bacevich skewers Americans for surrendering their true freedom for the illusory freedom of materialism. He also shows how the need for both power and abundance has undermined people's ability to manage their finances and also undermined U.S. power.

As he puts it at the end of the Chapter: "Long accustomed to thinking of the United States as a superpower, Americans have yet to realize that they have forfeited command of their own destiny. The reciprocal relationship between expansionism, abundance and freedom - each reinforcing the other - no longer exists. The reverse is true: Expansionism squanders American wealth and power while putting freedom at risk."

In Chapter 2, "The Political Crisis" Bacevich decries the establishment of an Imperial Presidency. He faults Congress for willingly ceding authority to the Executive Branch, especially when it comes to National Security. All they seem to care about is getting re-elected.

He also critiques the ideology of National Security and demonstrates how this ideology actually creates less security. All politicians and most Americans have accepted this ideology without question. It has given rise to a power elite in Washington that is more interested in protecting its turf than serving the American people.

He is particularly critical of the Bush doctrine of preventive war and sees it as both morally and politically corrupt. He also effectively skewers the idea that it is a sacred mission of the U.S. to export freedom. The ideology of National Security as practiced by an elite of "Wise Men Without Wisdom" has led us into a situation where we are engaged in a "War Without End".

As he points out at the end of the chapter: "The Wise Men...have repeatedly misconstrued and exaggerated existing threats, with perverse effects."

"No doubt today's Wise Men see themselves as devoted patriots...Yet that's not good enough. Those...whose advice yields horrific consequences of the sort we have endured beginning on 9/11 and continuing ever since. They have forfeited any further claim to trust."

In Chapter 3, "The Military Crisis", he documents how our military leaders have misused and misunderstood the power they have under their control. Politicians and military leaders have illusions about our ability to exercise our military power that lead them to expectations that are completely out of line with reality.

He discusses the enduring nature of war and its cruel realities, that confound not only those who we choose to govern us but also the Generals who are charged with war operations. He is particularly harsh on the expertise and leadership of most of the military leaders who have risen to the top since the Vietnam War.

He is particularly critical of the lack of strategic thinking on the part of those in charge. He points out that we don't need a bigger army but rather a focus on a more modest foreign policy so the soldiers are given tasks consistent with their capabilities.

Supporting our troops is not affixing a plastic emblem on a vehicle bumper but rather reining in the illusions of grandeur of our political and military leaders.

In his conclusion, Bacevich helps us realize that no matter who we elect as President the illusions and conditions we have created will continue. There is no easy fix. Promising to restore the status quo of power, abundance and exceptionalism will not give us the results we need to change things.

We have created a condition of dependence on imported goods, imported oil, and credit. This is not a good thing. We have somehow built a society based on material expectations where wants have become needs and needs have become rights. Somehow we must accept that there are limits, limits to our power, to our financial strength and limits to seeing Americans as exceptional. It's time for some humility and reality.

As Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote, "To the end of history, social orders will probably destroy themselves in an effort to prove they are indestructible".

Bacevich closes by pointing out that "Clinging doggedly to the conviction that the rules to which other nations must submit don't apply, Americans appear determined to affirm Niebuhr's axiom of willful self-destruction".

[Rick Krekel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Retiring a Colonel after 23 years in the Army, Andrew Bacevich is well acquainted with the political nature of projecting American military power abroad. His work in this volume goes far beyond the present administration's doctrine of preemptive war to the heart of the American illusion of indestructibility and how military solutions are overly relied upon to solve national security threats.

The stunning conclusion is America's war on terror is disproportionately falling on a small segment of the population serving in an all-volunteer military while the vast majority is encouraged to carry on business as usual. In an effort to keep threats of American shores, Bacevich traces the faulty strategy of wide-scale vs limited application of power to bring terrorist groups to justice -- and how the same application of power is making the case for more horrendous acts of terrorism directed at countries convinced they can win through superior show of force.

Bacevich's conclusions go straight to the hypocrisy of support for the troops with full expectations of entitlement to an unlimited supply of energy, cheap goods and easily accessible credit.

This book will make you reconsider what it is to be a patriot and stand up for freedom we cherish. I recommend it especially to those who consider the application of U.S. military power as the most effective means of achieving objectives of national security.

[Ottavia · Rating 3 out of 5]

Non particolarmente innovativo, ma forse è dipeso dal fatto che conoscevo già Bacevich. Ciò nonostante rimane un bel libro, a tratti molto provocatorio.

[Regina · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a serious, balanced commentary on the recent history of American wars, with a focus on the war in Iraq. Bacevich is considered a conservative historian and is an ex-member of our military, which makes his critique of America’s hunger for political and economic power abroad and the price we pay for it at home all the more compelling. One could argue that part of what informs him is his personal tragedy --- he lost a son in Iraq --- but he does not strike me as someone with an agenda and neither does he bring his personal loss up in this book’s pages.
Bacevich starts by analyzing the US domestic and foreign policy after WWII and in particular since the end of the Cold War. He deftly takes us through the decades in which America’s relationship to the world went from responsibility to lead by example, derived in turn from an almost religious belief in this country’s special place in history, to a sense of entitlement that has often led us to the use of force in an attempt to prevent other countries from stepping outside the “enlighted” path we insist they follow --- to our advantage, of course. This attitude is what Bacevich calls American Exceptionalism.
Boldly describing the American regime as imperialism and its elected leaders as imperial presidents, Bacevich looks with equal harshness at the Republicans and Democrats who have occupied the presidency over the last 50 years. It’s true that he is particularly appalled by the policies of the last eight years and does not believe the war in Iraq can be justified on moral or national security grounds. But he also shines a critical light on Clinton and other democrats who have proposed nothing different than their Republican counterparts.
No one is spared, least of all the American people. Bacevich believes that we have gotten freedom confused with consumerism, and feel compelled and entitled to consume more and more without disruptions or inconveniences --- no matter what the price.
He starts his book with a quote from the bible (the Book of Second Kings, chapter 20, verse 1): “Set thine house in order”. We should look within before concluding that our problems can be solved with external intervention.
Many texts presenting well crafted analyses end with the author’s suggestions on what could be done to correct perceived problems. Bacevich does the same. But as is usually the case, his proposed solutions seem rushed and not very well argued when compared to the rest of the book. He could have left that part out.
Overall an excellent book which should be read by every American. And in spite of the somber tone, I couldn’t put it down.

[Tripp · Rating 5 out of 5]

Andrew Bacevich is one of the great influential critics of American foreign policy today. His critiques of American consumerism and foreign policy are not too distant from those of leftie giants like Chalmers Johnson, so the left-leaning find it easy to like him. On the other hand, he says out front that he is a conservative and revives an older tradition of conservatism that opposes growing government power and entangling overseas adventures, so the right can be comfortable with him as well. Too bad the subject of his new book is quite uncomfortable.

His new book is The Limits of Power and it is a wake-up call to the American people. There are many who seem to think that the departure of W means that, economic troubles aside, the US can breath a sigh of relief. While he harshly condemns Bush for his many failures, Bacevich argues that Bush is merely the most fully developed of a tradition of Presidents acquiring more power and using it to pursue adventures abroad in the name of American exceptionalism. He also points to a self-pertuating national security infrastructure and culture that fails to serve the American people and an Empire of consumption that requires a huge share of the world's enegy to be sustained.

What is worrying is that all of the problems he identifies are systemic and are therefore difficult to solve. The economic crisis we are currently facing may give Obama the opportunity to effect major changes in society, but it is sure to be painful regardless. What's more it will likely require a national lifestyle change for which few are ready.

Away from the sadness and back to the book. In this book, Bacevich writes with a sort of peaceful outrage. He is harshly critical, but remains measured and analytical throughout. This does the book and reader as real service as he doesn't fly off the handle or digress into vitriol.

[Lynne · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was more impressed with this book than I expected to be. Here's a sample quote from the book [pg 174:]:

"To hard-core nationalists and neoconservatives, the acceptance of limits suggests retrenchment or irreversible decline. In fact, the reverse is true. Acknowledging the limits of American power is a precondition for stanching the losses of recent decades and for preserving the hard-won gains of earlier generations going back to the founding of the Republic. To persist in pretending that the United States is omnipotent is to exacerbate the problems that we face. The longer Americans ignore the implications of dependency [on oil:] and the longer policy makers nurture the pretense that this country can organize the world to its liking, the more precipitous will be its slide when the bills finally come due."

I'd recommend this book to those willing to entertain the idea that living like we are the only people on the planet, and that the bill-collector will never come, is destroying what the United States is supposed to actually be.

[E · Rating 4 out of 5]

A conservative historian’s frank, searing analysis

Author Andrew J. Bacevich dedicates this book to his son, a first lieutenant in the U.S. Army who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq. Bacevich has long been a strong conservative critic of U.S. policy in Iraq, but it’s difficult to escape the impression that the impassioned indictment set forth here draws on a deep reservoir of personal anguish. With unblinking, unwavering directness, he attacks the illusions, self-deceptions and hypocritical cant that he says have provided the atmosphere and background music for a U.S. orgy of profligate consumption at home and rapacious violence abroad. A leading “conservative historian,” Bacevich supports his case with remarkably well-chosen facts, anecdotes and quotations, without ever bogging down the reader in unnecessary detail. Whether you agree or disagree with his conclusions, getAbstract recommends his book to anyone interested in contemporary American history and events.

[Joseph Stieb · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first full Bacevich read was a great experience. Bacevich makes a concise and convincing argument for a new direction in our foreign policy and way of life. His basic criticism is that our foreign policy has attempted to imperially dominated the Middle East to lock down resources to support our profligate ways at home. Although I find this to be a loose use of the word imperialism, Bacevich makes a strong case that our foreign policies throughout and since the Cold War have been overly ambitious. He includes fascinating vignettes of characters like Forrestal, Stimson, Niebhur, Nitze, and Wolfowitz that add a lot of color to the book. He ends with a persuasive plea for a foreign policy focused on global warming and reducing to world's nuclear stockpile. Aside from an occasional cheap shot, this is an excellent book. 182 pages.

[Jim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Every American needs to read this book, and read it soon. Bacevich, a retired Army Colonel and now History Prof in Boston, puts forth the case that we, the American people, have allowed our present economic, military and political status to come about through our own non-involvement and obsession with consumption at any price. It is a convincing argument and although I was somewhat dismayed that the conclusion settled for hopelessness with a touch of condescension, the book as a whole is a grand charge for change....and not change from DC...but changing our ways of living before we drown in our own profligacy.

[Nicole · Rating 2 out of 5]

I learned some things about what has led to recent American military and foreign policy decisions, things that have been brewing for a lot longer than I ever realised. However, much of the book served to simply reinforce my already cynical suspicions about American society, the federal government, and "preventive war." I wish, though, that after Bacevich pointed out all that is wrong, he might've provided more concrete suggestions for how we can make things better.

[Neibaur · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book could've been done 80 pages into it. While I found Bacevich's perspective interesting, I also found his writing repetitive, using 160+ pages to make the same point over and over again. My advice, read the first 80 or so pages and then the last 12 and you'll have a great sense of the author's point.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bacevich, West Pointer, Vietnam veteran, conservative, rips Congress and all our recent presidents (especially George the Lesser) and we, the people, for having concocted a foreign policy designed to feed our self indulgence.

[Mack · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the most succinctly informative book I've ever read about America's foreign policy faux pas. It's the ideal introduction for anyone skeptical about our current military and political trajectory. In the Trump era, all the problems detailed here are ballooning to even more alarming proportions. The empire is stretching to a point where more and more people are waking up to the reality this sort of behavior and ideology cannot go on much longer without collapsing. This book will tell you exactly how we got to this point and why, alongside making a few suggestions for a change of course too sane for our crazy politicians. Bacevich is a measured, eloquent communicator and there are few better teachers to get you up to speed on this range of topics. Also, there are enough great Reinhold Niebuhr quotes in here to make you really want to check out every book he wrote too. Bacevich is probably too humble to admit this but his work really does project him into Niebuhr's echelon of soberminded American prophets. If you like this, The New American Militarism by Bacevich is a slightly more exhaustive, equally edifying look at these issues.

[Miles Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bacevich's book is a searing indictment of the US's foreign policy ideology and commitments in the latter half of the 20th and early 21st Century. I read parts of it years ago and I decided to revisit it; the criticisms still hold up. I think Bacevich oversells materialism a bit as a major reason for US imperialism. My own thought is that its one of the worst innate aspects of the Puritan's nasty influence on everything they touch.

[Jake · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bacevich is a retired Army Colonel and a conservative who is not afraid to criticize conservatives. This book urges a rethinking of American policy. Our consumption and willingness to force ourselves on the world while being unwilling to sacrifice anything are hurting us. It's slightly dated as it was written prior to Obama's election, but still relevant.

[Mickey Dubs · Rating 3 out of 5]

I believe in the country America used to be

[Zach Cohen · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Limits of Power is a fascinating deconstruction of the ideology that drives US political and military institutions. Though short, it's a very dense read, with a lot of hard hitting information packed into a relatively small amount of text.

Bacevich challenges the US self image of a freedom and peace loving country, always possessed of benign intentions, which constantly finds itself involved in conflicts created by 'evil' figures intent on denying us the peace we seek. Observating the religious like fanaticism with which the concept of liberty is treated in public discourse, he argues that we have defined 'freedom' in terms of consumerism and capitalism, and our pursuit of this type of freedom forces us to rely on military power to maintain an empire from which we can draw the resources, credit, and labor necessary to pursue our brand of freedom. His central thesis is that the economic/cultural, political, and military crises resulting from this misguided pursuit will ultimately harm the country in the long term. The unsustainable policies we justify in pursuit of freedom are ultimately self defeating. Not only must Americans take a realistic look what what lifestyle can actually be sustained and abandon their imperial delusions, but we must also reexamine what liberty actually means.

I found Bacevich's arguments well documented, insightful, and eloquent. Without summarizing the entire book: he discusses the history of american expansionism and the myth of our 'liberating tradition'. He notes the rise of our economic prestige, reaching its apex after world war 2 when the US was the indisputably dominant economic producer on the planet, running huge trade surpluses and maintaining net creditor status. As consumerism intensified, however, our appetites outstripped our means, which has led to the point where we are the worlds largest debtor and run astronomic trade deficits - totally unsustainable. We keep this imbalance on life support through our military power to ensure uninterrupted access to credit, natural resources, and cheap labor. He chronicles the development of dysfunction in the institutions of our political and military systems which have propelled us along this foolhardy path.

He succinctly states "the tendency among civilian [political leadership] has been to confuse strategy with ideology... the tendency among military officers is to confuse strategy with operations' US institutional leadership is blind to the limitations of US military power to maintain our lifestyle. Civilian leaders fail to acknowledge reality. We have neither the financial resources nor the military manpower (nor do we have domestic popular support or funding for an increase in the size of the military)to maintain the level of warmarking and suppression of foreign populations necessary to accomplish our goals. Military leaders, during the 90s and subsequent to 9/11, thought that our technological superiority endowed us with a military advantage unknown in human history. Our misadventures in Afghanistan and Iraq have revealed the hubris and miscalculation of our military abilities. Grass roots movements opposing foreign intervention can bog down our entire military establishment using guerrilla tactics and home made explosives, and the more intensely we fight 'insurgents' with hard power, the more we alienate the local population, increasing the strength of the resistance.

I rated this book four stars mainly because I find his analysis of the underlying causes of these crises somewhat lacking. He places a lot of the blame on the American people, who he views as obsessed with material consumption and unwilling to reign in elected officials because a change in policy would mean an end to the consumption habits we enjoy so much. It seems somewhat reminiscent of corporations, accused of malfeasance, claiming that they were just responding to consumer demand. This is disingenuous in a system with such a pervasive propaganda/advertising system designed to turn citizens into consumers and create artificial demand. The general population definitely bears some responsibility for the actions of its government, but Bacevich does not acknowledge the role that corporations and powerful private interests play in forming the system. Money dominates the US politics, and though the US holds free elections, the two party, corporate controlled system ensures Americans will choose between candidates who differ superficially but advocate positions only in the narrow range of economic and foreign policies acceptable to the corporate elite. While our military interventionism supports the materialistic freedom he describes, he does not deeply examine the role of corporate profiteering and influence in either the formation of military policy or the rise of consumerism.

All in all, a great read!

[Rose Rosetree · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have always had a loathing for the term "American Exceptionalism."

Now that I've read Andrew Bacevich speaking truth to power? Quite specifically I know why the notion of American Exceptionalism deserves to end.

Illusions and delusions have shaped U.S. Policy since 1945, and the continuing saga has led us all the way to the exceptional 15-voting "victory" of Kevin McCarthy to become House Speaker. (Not that Bacevich included the current congress catastrophe in his book.)

CONSIDER READING THIS MAGNIFICENT QUOTE

Here's just a favorite sample, from Page 173.

The Big Lies are not the pledges of tax cuts, universal health care, family values restored, or a world rendered peaceful through forceful demonstrations of American leadership. The Big Lies are the truths that remain unspoken: that freedom has an underside; that nations, like households, must ultimately live within their means; that history's purpose, the subject of so many confident pronouncements, remains inscrutable.

[Clif · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is a concise condemnation of the move to empire by the United States.

The author makes the case that American Exceptionalism, the idea that the U.S. system (of government, of economy, of culture) is superior and should be spread across the globe, is nothing new. Those who criticized it (Lincoln, Twain, LaFollette) "scored points but lost the argument".

It reached a crescendo with the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war, implemented disastrously in Iraq. At the base of it is the idea that unlimited consumption is a right requiring the United States to reach out and capture the world in one way or another to provide the endless cornucopia.

In the process, as any informed person knows, the US has moved from being the number one producer in the world after WW2, to being heavily indebted, moving more into the red each year. In pursuing military supremacy we have actually lost our leadership in other ways that matter more. The Europeans, no strangers to the imperial disease, spend tiny amounts of their budgets on their military and they watch us walk resolutely into the errors of empire they know so well.

The maintenance of military supremacy enriches those who are in positions of power, not just monetarily but by way of career advancement and prestige within the system. As Bacevich says, it doesn't matter what face occupies the Presidency or which candidates get elected to Congress - the status quo wins over even those who enter office with ideas for change.

There's an outline of the policies of the past few administrations, filled with cogent passages like this...

"The Reagan Revolution over which he presided was never about fiscal responsibility or small government. The object of the exercise was to give the American people what they wanted, that being the essential precondition for winning re-election in 1984 and consolidating Republican control in Washington. Far more accurately than Jimmy Carter, Reagan understood what made Americans tick: they wanted self-gratification, not self-denial. Although always careful to embroider his speeches with inspirational homilies and testimonials to old-fashioned virtues, Reagan mainly indulged American self-indulgence."

Bacevich points out that Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative ("Star Wars") preceded the Global War on Terror but prefigured it in the idea of using high technology to (it was claimed) efficiently end a threat. What it did in reality was fill the coffers of the military/industrial complex.

Bacevich takes a cleaver and cuts through the BS of the past 50 years, making it clear that, as the hourglass on the cover of the book indicates, time is running out for America to redirect itself.

Let me leave you with two examples of this book cutting through the BS...

"No one today seriously believes that the actions of the legislative branch are informed by a collective determination to promote the common good. For this very reason, periodic congressional efforts to curb abuses of presidential power are mostly for show and mostly inspired by a desire to gain some partisan advantage.

The chief remaining function of Congress is to ensure the re-election of its members, best achieved by shameless gerrymandering, doling out prodigious amounts of political pork, and seeing to the protection of certain vested interests."

and this...

"Ridding the world of nuclear weapons is likely to prove far more plausible and achievable than ridding the world of evil. Transforming humankind's relationship to the environment, which will affect the way people live their daily lives, can hardly prove more difficult than transforming the Greater Middle East, which requires changing the way a billion or more Muslims think."

[Nikolai Forrestwald]

Amerika, das Land der gar nicht so unbegrenzten Möglichkeiten

Fazit:
Ein durchweg interessantes und schlaues Buch, dass die Amerikanische Außenpolitik kritisch in den Blick nimmt und diese in Relation zu den innenpolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Problemen setzt, die den Vereinigten Staaten (stand 2008) bereits seit einigen Jahrzehnten zunehmend zusetzen. Die Geschichte hat einige der Befürchtungen Bacevichs im Nachhinein bestätigt. Bereits kurz nach der Veröffentlichung des Buches stürzten die Vereinigten Staaten, und nach ihnen die ganze Welt, in eine Wirtschaftskrise, deren Auswirkungen bis heute weltweit spürbar sind. Man täte meiner Ansicht nach gut auf die im letzten Kapitel angemerkten Lehren des Autors und die von ihm oft zitierten Ratschläge Reinhold Niebuhrs zu hören, da man einiges daraus lernen kann. Schade ist lediglich, dass dieses Buch mit seinen gut 200 Seiten nicht besonders ausführlich ist, weshalb ich hier nur vier Sterne gebe.

Hier noch eine Zusammenfassung der einzelnen Kapitel:
(Einleitung)
Der Militärhistoriker und Professor für amerikanische Außenpolitik blickt auf die gegenwärtige militärische, wirtschaftliche und politische Situation der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika, und fällt ein gar sehr ernüchterndes Urteil. Über die vergangenen Jahrzehnte (Stand 2008) nach dem kalten Krieg war die amerikanische Außenpolitik geprägt von einem beispiellosen Interventionismus mit katastrophalen Folgen auf sämtlichen Seiten. Vor diesem Hintergrund identifiziert Andrew Bacevich drei große Krisen mit denen die Vereinigten Staaten zu kämpfen haben. Einer militärischen, einer wirtschaftlichen, und einer politischen Krise. Diese sind allerdings nicht unabhängig voneinander zu betrachten, sondern stehen in einem engen Zusammenhang miteinander. Diese Krisen sind auch keineswegs neu sondern haben sich bereits seit den sechziger Bzw. siebziger Jahren langsam aber sicher angebahnt.

Im ersten Kapitel geht der Autor genauer auf die wirtschaftliche Krise, die Krise der "Verschwendungssucht" ein, und stellt dabei fest, dass sich das unter den Amerikanern verbreitete Verständnis der Werte "Freiheit, Leben und Streben nach Glück" in der Zeit seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg verändert hat. Ein puritanischer Arbeitsethos und ein Ethos der Selbstverleugnung haben einer auf Konsum, Genuss und Erwerb basierenden Selbstbefriedigungsethik platz gemacht. Diese wird von Bacevich historisch in Relation zu dem bereits in der amerikanischen Geschichte etablierten Drang zum Expansionismus zwecks des Erwerbs von Reichtum und Macht verortet. Der romantischen Verklärung der Amerikanischen Geschichte als einer telelogischen Befreiungsmission erteilt er dabei einer Absage. Daraufhin erläutert der Autor den historischen Hintergrund der sich in den letzten 60 Jahren (stand 2008) intensivierenden Verschwendungskrise der Vereinigten Staaten. Während die USA sich in den späten 40er und frühen 50er Jahren in einer Situation der beispiellosen militärischen und wirtschaftlichen Vormachtstellung befand, bahnte sich bereits in den 60ern eine Katastrophe langsam an. Die hohen Kosten des Vietnamkrieges und die zunehmende Abhängigkeit von ausländischem Öl führten zu wirtschaftlichen Problemen und der großen Stagflation von 1973. Präsident Carter, der die Probleme der gegenwärtigen Energie und Konsumpolitik erkannte und an das Volk mit Enthaltsamkeit appellierte und eine neue und nachhaltigere Energiepolitik forderte musste sich einem dem Volk näherstehenden Ronald Reagan geschlagen geben der daraufhin die Militärausgaben erhöhte, entgegen seiner eigenen Versprechen den Staatsapparat weiter ausbaute, und den Einflussbereich der Vereinigten Staaten durch die Unterstützung Afghanistans und des Iraks unter Saddam Hussein zu erweitern suchte. Unter den folgenden Präsidenten Bush Senior und Clinton kehrte sich diese Politik gegenüber Hussein um wobei die Neigung den amerikanischen Einflussbereich und "american way of life" durch militärische Interventionen am persischen Golf zu sichern beibehalten wurde. Was folgten war die "Operation Desert Storm", sowie heftige Bombardements mit Marschflugkörpern gegenüber den Irak und dem Iran und heftige Sanktionen gegenüber ersterem. Bush übernahm diese Politik und begann mit seinem Angriff auf Afghanistan 2001 offiziell seinen "Krieg gegen den Terror" der allerdings auf die ganze Islamische Welt unter dem Vorwand der "Befreiung" ausgeweitet werden sollte. Dabei machten ihm nicht allein die seit Reagan sich stetig verstärkenden wirtschaftlichen Probleme (eine sich stetig erhöhende Staatsverschuldung, Handelsdefizite, Bundesdefizite sowie ein Volk dessen Sparquote gegen Null ging) zu denen nun auch die gigantischen Summen die der Krieg bis zum Jahr 2007 allein gekostet hat gehörten, sondern auch der Widerstand im Irak einen Strich durch die Rechnung. Entgegen der angenommenen schnellen und kurz andauernden militärischen Operation begannen kurz nach dem Sturz des Saddam Regimes bereits die Aufstände zu denen 2006 ein Bürgerkrieg hinzugetreten ist. All das während die Amerikanischen Soldaten in der "grünen Zone" festsitzen und den Amerikanern zudem die Truppen ausgehen. Gleichzeitig steuerte Amerika direkt auf die Wirtschaftskrise von 2008 zu.

Im zweiten Kapitel geht Bacevich auf die Politische Krise ein, die im wesentlichen darin besteht, dass sich seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg unter der Ideologie der "Nationalen Sicherheit" ein Machtgefälle zugunsten der Exekutive und auf Kosten der Legislative ergeben hat, die den Präsidenten zunehmend mit einer imperialen Vollmacht ausstattet. Genauer gesagt trat der Kongress seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg in einer Reihe von Angelegenheiten die auch nur entfernt irgendwie mit der Nationalen Sicherheit zu tun hatte zunehmend Befugnisse an die Exekutive ab und ist seitdem eher damit beschäftigt Schauveranstaltungen abzuhalten und die Wiederwahl seiner Mitglieder durch politisch motivierte Geschenke, Wahlkreisverschiebungen und die Protektion bestimmter Wählergruppen zu garantieren während der Status Quo erhalten wird. Gut zeigt dies laut Bacevich das nicht eingehaltenen Versprechen des Kongresses 2006, eine große Wende im Irakkrieg herbeizuführen. Das Ergebnis ist eine dysfunktionale Politik die nicht einmal grundlegende geplante Reformen des Gesundheitswesen und der Sozialversicherung durchzusetzen vermag. Diese Ideologie der Nationalen Sicherheit ist von der Vorstellung des amerikanischen Exzeptionalismus und Militarismus umgeben und behauptet sich nicht aufgrund ihrer Wahrheit sondern aufgrund ihres Nutzens für diejenige "Machtelite" aus Wirtschaft, Politik und Militär, die seit der Erbauung dieses "Sicherheitsstaates" von ihr profitiert hat und auf die schon der Soziologe Charles Wright Mills aufmerksam gemacht hat. Die militärische Denkweise und die Einbildung und Überhöhung von angeblichen wie auch realen Gefahren (wie im Beispiel des Iraks und der angeblichen Massenvernichtungswaffen) zum Zweck der eigenen Daseinsberechtigung ist dabei ganz charakteristisch für diese Ideologie. Das höchste Maß davon ist die sogenannte "one percent doctrine". Gleichzeitig hat sich ein Vertrauensproblem in diesem Sicherheitsstaat etabliert. Besonders der Präsident und führende Politiker Washingtons wie der Verteidigungsminister stehen den häufig eigenen Interessen und Agenden folgenden Sicherheitsorganen (Verteidigungsministerium, Außenministerium, Geheimdienste, Vereinigte Stabschefs etc.) misstrauisch gegenüber und besonders seit Kennedy wird der Rat der Pentagon-Bürokratie und der Generäle meistens ignoriert und sich eher auf den Rat von kleinen Gruppen "weiser Männer" verlassen die kurzfristig zusammengerufen und wieder aufgelöst werden. Die wichtigen Entscheidungen werden dabei hinter geschlossenen Türen, fern der Blicke des Volkes oder des Kongresses getroffen. Zu denen zählen auch James Forrestal der die Tendenz zum Alarmismus, besonders im Bezug auf den Kommunismus, in Washington in Mode brachte, und der von Paul Nitze, dem Hauptautor von NSC-68 in dieser Hinsicht beerbt wurde. Einem Schreiben dem Truman zunächst skeptisch gegenüber stand, dessen Meinung sich aber durch den Koreakrieg veränderte. Nitze erkannte dabei besonders den Nutzen darin die Gefahren zu überhöhen und den Gegner zu dämonisieren um die eigenen Interessen zu verfolgen, den politischen Entscheidungsprozess zu beschleunigen und die Militärausgaben zu erhöhen. Dieses verfahren wurde von den Sowjets direkt auf den nahen Osten übertragen und unter Paul Wolfowitz in den 90ern und 2000ern dann zur Vollendung geführt. Einem stellvertretenden Verteidigungsminister der unter Rumsfeld eine Pax Americana auf den Weg brachte und neue Gewaltnormen etablieren wollte. Wie zuvor auch lieferten dabei zumeist falsche Geheimdienstdokumente und Berichte angebliche "Belege" die von großer Gefahr kündigten und das Vorhaben legitimieren sollten.
Laut Bacevich ist es ganz essentiell zu verstehen, dass ein neuer Präsident oder eine neue Parteimehrheit das Problem nicht fundamental verändern werden weil es bereits seit Generationen bestand hat und als Ideologie in ganz Washington verbreitet ist. Die führenden Mitglieder der "Machtelite" haben dabei ein Interesse an der Erhaltung des Status Quo da ihnen aus diesem Vollmachten zuwachsen.

Im dritten Kapitel geht Bacevich auf die militärische Krise ein. Diese besteht darin, dass die Vereinigten Staaten, wie der Irak und Afghanistan beweisen, ihre eigenen militärischen Fähigkeiten grandios überschätzt haben. Schuld daran waren drei Illusionen. Erstens, dass die Amerikaner in den 80ern und 90ern das Kriegshandwerk vollkommen "neu definiert" haben, besonders dank ihrer viel genaueren und somit zu weniger Kollateralschäden führenden technologischen Fähigkeiten und Waffen. Damit einher ging eine Forderung der "Überlegenheit auf allen Ebenen". Die zweite Illusion war, dass sich das Militär und die zivile Führung in Zukunft mehr nach gemeinsamen Prinzipien leiten lassen würden und nur dann in kurzen schnellen Gefechten kämpfen würden wenn es um vitale Interessen Amerikas ging. Ihren Ausdruck fanden dies in der Weinberger-Powell Doktrin. Dies würde auch kriegslüsterne Neigungen der Zivilisten in Washington bremsen. Drittens sei die Entfremdung zwischen Militär und Gesellschaft die sich während des Vietnamkrieges zuspitzte wieder beseitigt. Den Ausdruck der neuen Liebe der Gesellschaft zum Militär findet sich in dem Berufsheer der "United States Volunteers". Doch weder konnten häufig schnelle überlegene Siege errungen werden, noch hielten sich Zivilisten wie ZB. Madeleine Albright, an die Weinberger-Powell Doktrin, noch gab es trotz Patriotismus einen Ansturm des Volkes auf die Armee. Bei all dem wurde die Unsinnigkeit des "Globalen Krieges gegen den Terror" der von den Problemen im Heimatland ablenken sollte und gleichzeitig dazu diente die Vollmachten der Exekutive und des Präsidenten, wie schon bei jedem Präsidenten nach Reagan, weiter auszubauen offenbar. Die drei Lehren die man aus all dem zog waren: Erstens, dass die Armee sich in Zukunft auf eine andere Form des Krieges gefasst machen würde. Eine Form die nicht alleine, aber auch, auf hohe Technologien, sondern auch auf kleiner angelegte Bodenoperationen fußte, die sich nicht-kinetischer Methoden aus den Sozialwissenschaften bedienen sollten, und langwieriger wäre. Die von Aufstandsbekämpfung, der Nationenbildung und der Einsetzung einer Regierung auf die man Einfluss hat, sowie dem Ausbau der örtlichen Infrastruktur beruht. Man würde Softpower und Hardpower miteinander vereinen. Die zweite Lehre war, dass, wie es John Batiste formulierte, die Probleme auf die Einmischungen von Zivilisten in Washington zurückzuführen waren, die nichts vom Kriegshandwerk verstünden. Dem Militär sollte in Zukunft mehr Verantwortung übertragen werden. Die dritte Lehre war, dass das Berufsheer das Problem sei. Die Gesamtgröße der Armee sein wegen der fehlenden Wehrpflicht zu klein. Dies müsse sich ändern. Außerdem erhoffte man sich von mancher Seite durch eine Wiedereinsetzung der Wehrpflicht dass die Menschen durch die plötzliche Verpflichtung zum Krieg dazu gebracht würden aus der Unbeliebtheit des Irakkrieges eine tatsächliche Antikriegsbewegung zu machen. Doch dies sind laut Bacevich nicht die Lehren die man daraus ziehen sollte. Die kleinen Kriege sind besonders durch ihre imperiale Natur statt die Verteidigung gekennzeichnet und das neue Interesse an ihnen stützt sich auf die Literatur zu den Kolonialkriegen zwischen Frankreich und Algerien sowie Indochina. Amerika braucht aber keine imperiale Polizei sondern eine veränderte Außenpolitik. Ebenso ist die von General Tommy Franks angeprangerte Inkompetenz der Zivilisten in Washington sicher nicht höher als die der Generäle und führenden Offiziers der Zeit seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg. Bacevich bemerkt mit Rückblick auf die letzten Jahrzehnte, wie auch zuvor schon im Kapitel zur Politischen Krise, dass, besonders der Generalstab und die Offiziere, sich besonders inkompetent in militärischen und außenpolitischen Angelegenheiten geschlagen haben. Auch besaßen sie viele Freiheiten und Befugnisse. Das Problem sei nicht die Macht des Heeres sondern die Inkompetenz seiner Generäle. Die Wehrpflicht wiederum wäre einerseits um ein vielfaches zu teuer, und andererseits wäre das Volk heute nicht dazu bereit der Bundesregierung eine solche Wehrpflicht durchgehen zu lassen. Die Privatisierung des Krieges per Söldner und die Transformation des Militärdienstes in ein Wirtschaftsunternehmen wie bei der Firma Blackwater erscheint da als die noch wahrscheinlichere Wahl. Die richtigen Lehren die man ziehen muss, sind, dass der Krieg einerseits, entgegen dem was man aufgrund der technischen Überlegenheit und Errungenschaften sowie exzeptionalistischen Vorstellungen geltend macht, nie vollständig vorhersehbar und nur sehr schwer zu kontrollieren ist. Dies wird besonders klar durch die großen Probleme welche die USBV den amerikanischen Soldaten im Irakkrieg bereitet hat. Zweitens, dass Gewalt, entgegen der Vorstellungen der amerikanischen Außenpolitik seit dem zweiten Weltkrieg kein Allheilmittel sein kann. Auch nach fast sechs Jahren (stand 2008) ist der Irak von einer Nationenbildung noch weit entfernt, geplagt von Korruption und schlechter Stromversorgung, geringer Ölförderung und einem inkompetenten Parlament. Hier haben wir eher ein apathisch regiertes Protektorat. In Afghanistan ist gleichermaßen seit der von Bush installierten Regierung die Drogenexportierung exponentiell angestiegen. Drittens, dass der Präventivkrieg eine abstruse Torheit ist die sich weder moralisch noch strategisch rechtfertigen lässt, und viertens, dass die Amerikaner die "Strategie" verlernt haben. Zunehmend wird, besonders seit der stabilisierende Gegner Sowjetunion wegfällt, nicht mehr auf den historischen, kulturellen oder politischen Kontext einer militärischen Operation geachtet und über die eigentliche Operation hinaus geplant, sondern sich nur auf das vorübergehende Ziel, zum Beispiel "Bagdad" oder "Kabul" konzentriert und einer hegemonialen Phantasievorstellung ergeben. Bewusst ignorieren Generäle wie Tommy Franks die politischen Hintergründe um sich von der zivilen Führung Washingtons abgrenzen zu können und einen Alleinanspruch auf die militärischen Befugnisse geltend zu machen. Dabei übersieht man, dass der Krieg sich, außer vor einem politischen Hintergrund, moralisch unmöglich rechtfertigen lassen kann.

Den drei Kapiteln folgt ein Schlusskapitel und ein Nachwort, in denen Bacevich unter anderem Obamas bisherigen Versprechen (stand 2009) mit einem gewissen vorsichtigen Skeptizismus gegenüber tritt, Revue passieren lässt über die tatsächlich kurz nach der Veröffentlichung des Buches eintretenden wirtschaftlichen Folgen der amerikanischen Innen-sowie Außenpolitik der zweiten Hälfte des zwanzigsten und frühen einundzwanzigsten Jahrhunderts. Beide können dabei nicht scharf voneinander abgegrenzt betrachtet werden. Er warnt vor der Vorstellung man bräuchte nur den richtigen Mann ins Oval Office zu wählen und schon würden sich alle Probleme von selbst lösen. Die Berater des Präsidenten, die Offiziere in Washington, aber auch die Verteiler der Spendengelder, um die die Präsidenten im Wahlkampf buhlen, sind alle nicht darauf erpicht die Macht des Nationalen Sicherheitsstaates und des Präsidenten einzudämmen oder den Status Quo maßgeblich zu verändern. Stattdessen soll die Wahl maßgeblich Kontinuität fördern. Diese Erwartung ist deshalb so beliebt, weil sie den einfachen Bürger von der Verantwortung um das eigene Wohl und das Wohl des Landes befreit und diese einem anderen, in diesem Fall dem Präsidenten, auferlegt. Politik ist immer von Lügen und falschen Versprechen gekennzeichnet und was die Amerikaner brauchen ist nicht einen neuen Präsidenten sondern eine Einsicht in die Widersprüche der eigenen Politik und des "american way of life. Amerila hat sich unter Bush nur zunehmend von der restlichen westlichen Welt entfremdet. Statt einem globalen Krieg gegen den Terror fordert der Autor eine Tendenz zur kooperativen Eindämmung. Es wäre das richtige mit dem radikalen Islamismus so umzugehen wie man es während des kalten Krieges mit der Sowjetunion und China gemacht hat. Indem man defensiv deren Einflussbereich verkleinert und ihnen Rückzugsorte und Hilfsmittel abschneidet. Ebenso wäre eine "Public Diplomacy" angebracht. Zentral wäre es ebenfalls, so Bacevich, mit den anderen Nationen zusammen an gemeinsamen Lösungen der wirklich zentralen Probleme unserer Zeit zu arbeiten. Diese sieht er in der Pflicht zu einer atomaren Abrüstung sowie einer Bekämpfung des Klimawandels. Ersteres begründet er einerseits damit, dass Atomare Waffen aktiv nie einsetzbar sind, und zweitens auch als Abschreckmittel aufgrund der der Entwicklung von Lenkraketen mit hochgradiger lateraler Wirkung unnötig würden. Ebenso würde die USA der Welt durchaus mehr Sicherheit bringen wenn sie sich für eine umweltfreundlichere Energiequelle einsetzen und die Milliarden die in den Irakkrieg geflossen sind für die Erforschung einer solche einsetzen würde. Der Autor gibt sich letztendlich jedoch skeptisch und eher pessimistisch und erwartet, dass die Amerikaner dank ihrer Kultur des Konsums und der Selbstverwirklichung sowie der Ideologie der Nationalen Sicherheit weiter eine aggressive Außenpolitik verfolgen werden, zunehmend auf den nächsten Präsidenten setzen damit dieser es "schon richten" werde, und von den Gütern und Ölimporten anderer Nationen abhängig sein werden. Im Nachwort bemerkt Bacevich noch einmal kritisch, dass das durchaus konventionell aufgestellte Regierungspersonal Obamas mit geringer Wahrscheinlichkeit fundamentale Änderungen herbeiführen wird und bemängelt Obamas Hang zum Exzeptionalismus.

[Booketeer · Rating 2 out of 5]

I wanted to like this book more, but I couldn't. The first half contains a great deal of moralization about America's wanting too much. But that is a function of economic policy and politics that applies to Greece as much as the US. Bacevich seems confused here. At one point he mentions plunging savings rates, but never mentions intentional monetary policies that have discouraged saving and encouraged debt. How these are related to war is unclear.

One probable link in Bacevich's mind is "energy independence." Bacevich seems like an unreconstructed Carterite at some points in this book (though at other times perhaps critical... I couldn't tell what he thought in any consistent sense). America's want too much oil. But why should any nation be able to produce everything it needs? I see mutual interdependence as a good thing and don't understand how Bacevich's "economic nationalism" (my term; and, again, I'm guessing as best I can) can possibly encourage peace.

In many places I felt like Bacevich flipflopped between a "bad people" analysis and a "structural provlems" analysis (again, my terms). I don't know if he really knows which. Trying to make sense of everything, I think the issue might be that we have embarked on a "national security tradition" that involves recruiting the wrong people to do the wrong thing. Since the positions are somewhat self-selecting, only people who have stupid and nationally degrading ideas about national security want or are allowed into those positions in the national [in]security apparatus.

But as far as I remember I just wrote a much clearer sentence than any you will find in The Limits of Power.

Also, Bacevich will make statements without evidence or argument. I especially remember him saying that our quality of generals is very low compared to ones we have had in the past. But he never proved this point or seemed to think he needed to. In making the comparison he claimed that Grant and Sherman were great generals. I find this hard to believe.

There was a lot of good information and food for thought. So I don't feel the book was a waste. But I remember his Washington Rules being a lot more cogent.

Also, he dismisses re-instituting national service, because it is politically unfeasible. But nothing is really feasible about any of his "solutions." So why limit himself? What does he think he is accomplishing in this book.

And then he ends with a call for saving the planet from climate change. Stealing the internal combustion engine from the developing world will make all our bloodshed in Iraq and Afghanistan seem like nothing. Anthropogenic global warming is a fraud that will be a eugenic genocide if seriously implemented. Which it never will be because India, China, and other nations are never going to allow us to do that to them.

I have no idea what drives Bacevich's world view. His critique of "pre-emptive war" is quite good, and his analysis of Wolfowitz, and other killer utopians who should never be given responsibility at any level of government, is chilling. But I am no longer going to recommend him. Associating peace with a bunch of pop-moralisms about the environment and energy is not going to be a productive way to wake people up.

[Relstuart · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book contains some good questions about where we are as a nation and what we are making priorities by how we spend our money and how we excercise force with our military might. This was written before president Obama took office. Several things that were blamed on Republicans or neo-cons are still things that are practiced by the current administration. But there was some discussion on how some things have stayed the same. The government keeps getting bigger and Americans seem to keep on believing that we are an exceptional nation that makes the rules that the rest of the world needs to follow. We are spending and consuming our way into oblivion.

He discusses how the military sees war currently and how the view has changed since WWII and since Vietnam and how the nation's view of what war means has changed. This included discussion on how we have rejected the draft as a means to create a citizen army and how we now depend on a professional fighting force. It is easier politically to send a professional force into war than it is to convince the country that drafting people away from their normal lives is appropriate.

The military does not plan to win wars. We win battles and topple regimes but we stayed in Iraq and Afganistan this time with no military plan to win. He was fairly critical of Gen Tommy Franks (commander who was in charge of invading Iraq and Afganistan) and his failure to plan beyong beating the convential forces we attacked.

In his summation chapter he deals with two ideas I didn't feel he really discussed earlier on that I disagree with. One was nuclear disarmement. He wants the US to totally get rid of all our nukes and states "Furthermore, the day is approaching when the United States will be able to deter other nuclear-armed states, like Russia and China, without itself relying on nuclear weapons." He goes on to talk about how precision munitions are better. He also makes an offhand comment about how America was not justified in using the atom bomb to end the war with Japan. I completely disagree. More nations are getting access to the bomb and giving up this option leaves us at the mercy of their threats unless we strike as soon as they threaten.

The other idea was that we needed to end our dependence on energy sources outside our borders and to do this we need to end global warming. I'm not convinced these two things tie together really well.


A retired army Colonel, the author's son was US Army Lieutenant killed in action in 2007. There are many negative comments about the direction our country is going. Some of these come off as reasoned and some of them are reasonable. However, I have to wonder how much of his view on this subject is informed by the fact that his son died fighting to support our efforts in the middle east.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bacevich argues that the impulses which have led America to wars that seem to have no exit and no deadline have come from within our country, from our own "domestic ambitions, urges and fears" (5). The problem is that we Americans expect the rest of the world to accommodate our way of life, a way of life rooted in consumption. We want "more"! This has led us to a point, as individuals and a country, when we are unable to live within our means. When a president (Carter) dared say we try to live with less, he was destroyed in the next election as Reagan told Americans they could have more. I found interesting how Bacevich showed that previous wars (WWII) required sacrifice by those still at home, while our current wars have come with politicians telling us to live as if nothing is different (keep shopping!).

Along with this economic crisis, there is a political and military crisis. The political crisis is seen in terms of both parties really being just one party that wants to keep the status quo, perhaps disagree on small things, but agree on big things (such as Americans always being able to get more). Also, an imperial presidency that increasingly is free from the confines of other parts of government and able to pretty much do whatever he wants in foreign policy. The military crisis is seen in the surprising difficulty (to those in power) America has had of ending/winning the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bacevich argues that America is not learning the lessons it needs to learn from these wars. The lessons we should learn are that war is always uncertain, that armies can only do so much, that preventive war is folly and that tight strategy is a lost art.

I found this book very interesting. As a Christian I was intrigued that Bacevich quoted Reinhold Niebuhr throughout, clearly Niebuhr's thought is central to Bacevich's diagnosis. I am not sure if Bacevich is a Christian, but this book does echo biblical critiques of empire. It is thought provoking, providing a lot of fodder to enable us to critique the country in which we live. If anything, this book may be too negative in that any and all nations are imperfect, not just America. Yet we cannot fault Bacevich for limiting his scope to America, after all, that's pretty much the point of the book. Self-criticism is always the hardest, and Bacevich does an admirable job of helping us in this.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just read in the LA Times today that the US spends more on defense that the next ten countries combined. Reading Bacevich's book gives almost encylopedic litany of reasons why this expenditure does not ensure our safety nor provide us with the mechanism to enforce the will of our government around the world.

Bacevich points out that the price of our excessive use of oil is undervalued. The price for a gallon of gas should include our military involvement in the Middle East. The sad fact is that our overblown "security and intelligence" organizations (Homeland Security, CIA, FBI, Joint Chiefs etc.) are usually ignored by the "imperial" presidency that has evolved over time. Instead, a small circle of trusted "wise men" advise the president. Our recent involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan shows the fruits of this approach. Our security agencies missed the predecessor signs before 9/11, got the nuclear threat of Iraq wrong and have basically been a waste of money.

The military also takes a beating in this book. Bacevich, who is a retired officer, lost his son to an IED in Iraq. His patriotism is not in doubt here. He notes that General Tommy Franks brags in his memoir that he ignored the poor advise of his civilian counterparts in the government and had almost total control of troops on the ground. No more excuses of excessive civilian oversight were given by him as was the case in our Vietnam fiasco. We went to Iraq "on the cheap" in terms of troop numbers and generated a power vacuum that the insurgency used to its advantage. The use and perfection of the IED has almost neutralized our incredible military expenditure.

The average American citizen also does not escape blame. We have allowed our leaders to lead us into two wars without clear objectives or historical perspective (remember the Russians in Afghanistan?). We have allowed the massive military expenditure of these adventures to go unpaid and even enjoyed tax cuts while our professional soldiers risked life and limb over multiple tours to the war zone. President Eisenhower warned of the dangers of the "Military Industrial Complex" posed to our democracy. Add big oil and the notion that corporations are the same as individuals and you have a polarized political environment that every four years blames the latest president for a system that is basically broken.

I will not go into some of the solutions that Bacevich offers. Please read this book and take to heart some of its wisdom.