Came across this essay/review of The New American Militarism. The author, my wife, wishes to remain anonymous. I think it is kind of interesting for those of us who wonder why we are where we are today. Finally, it might be time to question what our role is in this entire process. Her discussion starts here:
According to Andrew Bacevich, noted West Point graduate and military historian, Vietnam provided the framework for the rise of a new ‘military metaphysic’. This military metaphysic conceptualizes the foreign policy articulated in our government since the sixties, which embraces a trend of continuous warring. Moreover this sort of military fascination permeates the entire population. The new militarism is no longer a preventive tool, which is required for the deterrence of threats, but an all encompassing attitude of the American life. Moreover, militarism has evolved in such a way that it involves the overall domestic economy and thus, the global economy. It has acquired a complex interdependence with American’s views and ways of life. How this process has evolved, Bacevich opines was a reaction to the shocking events that the Vietnam experience inflicted upon the United States. Indeed, never before had the United States experienced such a failure, and for the first time in history, Americans were exposed and suffered the horrors of war realizing that America was as vulnerable as any other nation.
Military metaphysics then became the answer for healing the pain, the promise that never again America would suffer such a defeat; never again there will there be another Vietnam. The Vietnam experience deeply affected any Nation involved into the conflict; Europe with the rest of the world as spectators were shocked by the unraveling events, but the depth of distress Americans experienced cannot be compared to any other people. This utter American dismay was provoked by the ingrained assumption of the American people to be the chosen one and thus, untouchable. Such a belief of been the chosen one is clearly pointed out by Bacevich, in the very first chapter of his book The New American Militarism, when he relates Wilsonian ideals. When Wilson decided to intervene during the first World War, Bachevich writes: "Only the certainty that he was acting as a divine agent, that America’s mission was a providential one, could justify his decision in the spring of 1917 to intervene" (Bacevich, 11). Since Wilson, American presidents have used such metaphors in addressing the American public. For instance, President George W. Bush, during his discourse delivered on the anniversary of 9/11 in addressing the public he said " ‘The ideal of America is the hope of all mankind [...] And the light shines in the darkness. And the darkness will not overcome it"’ (Bacevich, 12). This American ideal emerges from the assumption that God chose the first settlers into the land for actualizing His divine scheme. Therefore, the use of force is justified by the Lord and military power, the Christian right professes is legitimized for fulfilling the Scriptures.
This new militaristic power is visible within the United States, as well as, in the rest of the world. As Bacevich points out never before has defensive military spending reached such highs, not even during the Cold War. The United States has over 700 bases scattered around the globe. This is the new aesthetic, as Bacevich calls it of the American military power, Omnipresent. The American economy and thus, the discourse and the culture since, in a capitalist society the most important value dictating all others is based on individual wealth, is today, like never before, intertwined with military power. The military-industrial complex comprises all aspects of American economy; therefore, American culture is a direct reflection of such militarism. Indeed, today’s pop culture constitutes the pulp fiction obsession derived from military aggression. This we see in the characterizations of the several "Rambos", in which Rambo the hero is constantly presented and amplified, as the man of distinguished valor and therefore, looking at the warrior’s life in mythical terms. Indeed, we dress in camouflage clothes we drive tank-like trucks. In sum, we are obsessed with militarism. Americans’ lives are imbued with a sense of accomplishment derived from military power. Magazines portray the men and women of the armed service as idol to be idolize. For instance, Newsweek soon after Operation Desert Storm wrote an article about the soldiers, in which it said: (soldiers)"Looked like a Norman Rockwell painting come to life. They were young, confident and hardworking, and they went about their business with pose and elan" (Bacevich, 23). Furthermore, a writer for Rolling Stone (after spending some time with the soldiers) magnified the excitement of their communal life. He writes about these fighters and their life -- astonished by the camaraderie they share, men and women helping each other, looking after one another successful in their life and utterly ambitious. Further, he wonders about the feeling his own father, a post Vietnam anti-militarist, had about soldiers and he’s concerned about the fact that his father wasn’t able to see the importance and honor of military life. Indeed, as Bacevich illustrates, today the entire population is in military awe. The United State Armed Service, since the 1960s’ has became venerated. This according to Bacevich is the consequence of the reaction induced by the sixties and the Vietnam War.
In fact, Bacevich argues that although, many Americans of that time rejoiced in the new freedom they experienced and embraced a new way of thinking that departed from the old ways many others, perhaps the majority, felt a deepening dismay of being doomed and of going toward disaster. Indeed, that America was directed toward a disastrous new direction was clearly demonstrated by the failure America sustained in Vietnam. Thus, Bachevich opines these Americans guided by a solid Evangelical faith felt that the reconstitution of a military power was the only method for curing the depravation that had possessed the country. Furthermore, Vietnam had shattered the public consensus enjoyed by the military during the Cold War and thus, the military establishment felt an additional blow to its status, which they decide to correct by once again enhancing their rank in the eyes of the American citizens.
An additional reason, for the new military metaphysic is, according to Bacevich, the creation of the all-volunteer force, which took place in the aftermath of Vietnam. If this volunteer force may have its own benefits in one hand on the other hand, Bacevich sees it as detrimental. In fact, Bacevich argues that by ending the draft the United State moved from one of the oldest principle of America, which was the notion of obligations one felt toward the country, which comprised the duty of defending it as well. Therefore, civic connotation was bound in the soldier’s mind. According to Bacevich since military service has become solely an individual choice that sense of civic duty is lost. Therefore, the soldier and the citizen are two separate entities. Indeed, the "All Volunteer Force" is a euphemism, Bacevich writes, for what is in fact, a professional army thus, warring has become just another business, a lucrative business. If militarism is merely a profession then its success is productivity and wars are the production of such business.
Wars have become the business of soldiers and thus, endless. The rebuilding of this militarism came as an answer to save the country from the shame of defeat, but more importantly as a mean to restore its status quo. In fact, after the Vietnam War the officer corps had lost such status according to Bacevich and thus initiated a program of military reform. Furthermore, the Religious Rights blamed the defeat of the war on the corruption of the American citizens and thus, elevated the military moral status in effort to restore the right path of millions of other Americans that had lost their way. Thanks to those efforts the military power has become today the emblem of national greatness. Moreover, Vietnam gave the Religious Right the excuse to profess the ideology of deterrence as the only option to maintain peace. If in the 17th century military power was viewed as poison since Vietnam it is considered the preferable and only way to assert the American way of life.
This preferable American way is a sentiment that comes and is been shaped since the outset of time. In fact, as Bacevich writes "American story begins with the forging of a special covenant. God singled out Americans to be His New Chosen People [...] further, in John Winthrop’s enduring formulation of 1630, ‘as a city upon a hill,’ its light illuminating the world" (Bacevich, 122). This view has evolved in such a way to convince Americans and the government establishment of an American moral superiority. Therefore, shaping the belief that America has the power and more importantly the moral obligation to transform the rest of the world to its liking. In fact, these beliefs guided the ideology of the Religious Right and helped form the neoconservative attitudes toward the use of military force in conducting foreign policy. Indeed, Michael Leeden wrote, "The United State was ‘the most revolutionary force on earth, its inescapable mission to fight for the spread of democracy’" (Bacevich, 88). This ideal pervaded the anti communist ideologues, which believed that the only alternative to a Communist Empire was an American Empire capable of exercising decisive control over the world. In fact, their rhetoric was such that the American people became increasingly worried of the danger posted by a Communist Empire. Thus, soon after World War II the consensus of the American public was for the permanent fighting against communism in order to spread democracy and the American way of life as an "universal principle." Furthermore, the Religious Right came to be imbued with a sense of hubris and confidence about the sovereignty of the United States. More important, they portrayed the United State as the sole recipient of higher moral values, which has therefore, the obligation of spreading those values and transforming the world for the good of America, as well as, the rest of humankind. This belief became the creed for committing America to perpetual military supremacy.
President George W. Bush didn’t invent the ideology of military supremacy or the idea of preventive war in fact, Bacevich points out those were ideology already well ingrained into the minds of the liberal elite and Christian right. President Bush view of the war on terrorism through a religious lens rather than an ideological lens conforms to the Christian elite’s views and thus, as Bacevich writes, it isn’t a new phenomenon, but rather the outlook of the Vietnam aftermath. In fact, the defeat sustained by the U.S. was blamed on the moral collapse of the American people on the cultural shift of the faithless counter culture. Vietnam became a cultural and a moral crisis indeed, and the moral collapse, like Bacevich opines, was considered responsible for the military collapse. Thus America experienced a resurgence of Evangelicalism in the effort of restoring the right values and brings America once again into the right path.
Although, Evangelicals weren’t always pro-military, in the aftermath of Vietnam they saw the cultural upheaval and the blasphemous conduct of American citizens as the distancing from the right path. Moreover, Evangelical leaders came to view the military as the soldiers of God, which from the beginning of time had fought against the infidels and against the one that weren’t the chosen one thus, Americans. Therefore, in their eyes military became the emblem of moral rectitude and as such the driving force capable of regaining power in the world. This power was legitimated by the notion that the Lord had chosen the American people as His people and thus granted them leadership of the world. Therefore, the Religious Right imbued the use of force and preventive war with a sense of moral legitimacy and thus, helped to spur the legitimization of neoconservative attitudes toward the use of military force in the preceding of their foreign policy.
This attitude toward militarism and the conduct of America foreign policy as hegemony is been explored as well by other authors such as Winthrop and Tuveson. Both of the authors analyze America’s understanding of its global role in view of America’s religious roots and in the Protestant principles of justification by faith alone. Further, on the primacy of the Bible as the only source of truth and thus, the necessity to follow the scriptures literally. Moreover, Winthrop puts in evidence the creed of stewardship in Protestantism and thus, the priesthood attained by all believers therefore, the supreme rightness of their belief. In fact, Protestant evangelicals believe in the manifestation of destiny, which has been shown to the United State of Americans by the Lord when He chose them as His agents of the Promised Land. Further, the notion that the rules set by the United State are in effect the rules of God legitimate further American hegemony since in effect is God’s will.
This set of beliefs gave rise to the ideology of the dualism of the world seen as Good versus Evil. Since the American people were chosen by God to be His agents, according to Winthrop and Tuveson as well they are working toward the manifestation of His will in a mutual consent that form the covenant of the American social structure. In addition, Winthrop argues, Americans are the Stewards of God and as such individualistic and egalitarian and thus, the promoter of a liberalism that needs to be spread into the world. Additionally, anyone that doesn’t conform to the covenant becomes the Evil against God’s will. Tuveson goes even further by writing that the manifestation of destiny is the actualization of the Lord’s will and Americans are the agents for the implementation of the Supreme will into the rest of the world. Indeed, by looking at these writings then one understand how the Millenium ideal grown out of an apocalyptic history convinces the American people that the government has the right to act as a hegemony into the rest of the world. In fact, it isn’t the will of the government but, as what the authors call it, it is manifest destiny. Manifest destiny was guaranteed to the Americans when God chose them as the agents of universal social salvation. The new millenium trough apocalyptic history sees the world evolving as preordained by Divine will.
One of the most obvious manifestations of this belief I think is seen in the United State obsession with the Jewish State. In fact, evangelicals see in the scripture this preordained sequence of events. The culmination of events will give the rise of the Antichrist and will terminate with the destruction of his will in the great battle of Armageddon, which will allow the Second Coming of Christ and a thousand year of peace. The crucial element for these sequences to take place is that the Holy Land has to be returned to Jews. This conviction of manifest destiny is such that the United State shows a resolute loyalty to the Jewish State. In fact, because of this conviction of manifest destiny the U.S. is eager to support Israel in the development of its prescribed role. Additionally since the end of the Cold War the U. S. has intervened in innumerable conflicts such as in Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, Kosovo, Grenada and many more, always shielded in their quest of intervention by the requirement dictated by the Bible.
Although, the theories provided by Bacevich and Tuveson, as well as, Winthrop are linear and comprehensive and most importantly, are the reflections of the actual belief shared by the majority of American people I think, they are a mere shield to cover the real intention of America into the world. In fact, I think America’s will is to be the number one power into the world for economic gains. Indeed, why otherwise America doesn’t intervene in places like Darfur or Rwanda? Why the most important element of intervention is always dictated by economic reasons? I do believe, as the three authors write, that the American people truly believe in their superiority over the rest of the world. Indeed, it is obviously clear in their interaction with the rest of the globe, but I don’t believe their actions are dictated by their values to do good deeds in the world rather, competition and power dictate American values. Before resolving the world’s problems why don’t we begin to address some of the internal flaws. What neoconservatives such as Podhoretz mean when they write about "incandescent moral clarity"? Is incandescent moral clarity the knowledge that the majority of the American people live below poverty level? I think that for attaining power and respect the United States needs to focus primarily on pressing problems distressing the lives of American citizens such as a decent education for all, proper health care, proper care for the elderly. The elderly are an inconvenience in the American social structure an inconvenience better off death then alive therefore, a society that doesn’t even respect its own people how can it respect others? Are those the values we need to help the rest of the world acquire?
Moreover, one of the most important factors imbued in American culture is individuality, which is brought to the extreme of becoming arrogance. The I have replaced everything in fact, everything revolve around the alter ego of the single individual thus, I don’t believe in the covenant of the group unless the covenant works into the direction of empowering each individual. The corrosion of the family values, I think is the major problem facing America today. In fact, the excerpt from Bacevich’s book where he relates the anecdote of the Rolling Stones journalist and his infatuation with the bond shared among the soldiers is a reflection of the absence of family bondage. Further, I think that American people look at the acquisition of power in order to compensate the void created by the individualistic society they created. This power attained by militarism results into the exploitation of other people’s principles and the exploitation of nature as well and thus, in the long run it cannot be sustained. Moreover, the new millenium encompasses the entire world and not merely the Western Hemisphere therefore, the very idea seen through the American lens in my opinion is flowed.