Get Real
How are we to explain this propensity for moralistic huffing and puffing, this posing of fraudulent alternatives, these claims of vast redemptive responsibilities? Such tendencies reflect what has come to be the central defect of American statecraft, namely, an unwillingness to deal with the world as it actually is rather than as we might like it to be. Even before 9/11, political elites in the imperial capital displayed a troubling inclination to evade reality by asserting a capacity to transform it. Recall, for example, Bill Clinton chanting the wonders of globalization and his fatuous assurances that utopia waited on the far side of his “bridge to the 21st century.â€
The events of 9/11 only accentuated this tendency, particularly as it pertains to America’s relations with the so-called Islamic world. Before long, ideological fervor had all but completely eclipsed human experience as the foundation of George W. Bush’s worldview. Rather than consider the possibility that our own mucking around in other people’s business might have contributed to our troubles, the president found it much easier to issue grand pronouncements touting the onward march of democracy and America’s determination to satisfy the yearning of Muslims everywhere to be free.
The ideologues who inhabit the upper reaches of the Bush administration can’t deal with the actual record of that human experience, which is fraught with ambiguity and has no predetermined direction. In particular, they can’t deal with the actual record of American history, in which the United States has sought and used its power for purposes not always supportive of peace, liberty, and the well-being of humankind.
The source is current edition of The American Conservative magazine. The author is Andrew Bacevich, a former career military office and currently a professor of international relations at Boston University. There is no more articulate advocate of the "realist" school of foreign policy around. I found his book, The New American Militarism, to be a wonderful read last summer. He offers a full account of the lessons learned by the military in the post-Vietnam era and how they have been successively discarded by the civilian political establishment of both parties.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:41 am
Marc, I wouldn’t keep coming back here if I couldn’t count on you to follow a fairly glowing post on “The Euston Manifesto” with a piece of well-considered “realism” gleaned from the pages of Paleo-Pat’s mag.
April 18th, 2006 at 6:54 am
I will say the same – and highly reccomend Bacevich’s book before his current New American Militarism… “American Empire,” for especially critical comment about so-called “humanitarian intervention” as reccomended by the Euston gang – and his essay in New Left Review (possibly the first guy to be published by both NLR and “PaleoPat” but I’m not sure) about Tommy Franks.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Surprised that there is a conservative critique of the Bush Foreign Policy?. Why? The neocons and the theocons (Bush as messiah) have always seen the world differently than the Paleocons. It was only their joint stand against Communism that obscured this fact. But Pat represents an old strain in American Politics that abhors “Entangling Foreign Alliances”. I suspect that many here support this but would intervene in Darfur. Ask yourself. Just how uninvolved you want to be? I have problems with universal truths or rules. Iraq was wrong – Haiti was not. And neither was Afghanistan. And does anyone think we were right to not go into Ruanda? What about East Timor? We had some responsibility there. Do we just walk away? I pose these questions because we need answers for the future.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:38 pm
I agree that the book is excellent. He’s a very sharp hombre.
April 18th, 2006 at 12:44 pm
I hope I was clear that I was referring to two separate book titles. Bacevich’s first book on American Empire is superior to New American Militarism, which is simpy an accessible version of the former’s thesis, with some interesting points about military/civil relations, not all of which I agree with….lI am curiosu as to whicy an accessible version of his h Haitian intervention LoCicero thinks was right – the 1994 one that restored Aristide (defensible) or the recent occupation/coup that deposed Aristide (disgusting)?
The UN has a responsiblity to prevent genocide. No state can do that alone. It is the US that prevents the creation of an international rapid reaction force (they don’t want American soldiers with Russian – or even gasp, Arab generals) that would solve problems such as Darfur, Rwanda etc.
April 18th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Haven’t read Bacevich’s books, but this piece is extremely clear and sensible—as long as JCummings point about genocide is added.
“Drenched in ideological claims, the new National Security Strategy goes out of its way to ignore the past. Where history figures at all, it does so only on the margins.”
Aside from my considerable antipathy toward the Bush administration, I must admit I’m personally confounded by the above, which is so obviously true to anyone with even a broad strokes knowledge of world history and cultural patterns, who also bothers to rub two thoughts together. I guess hubris is the best explanation for such willful blindness, as I can find no other.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
I’m wondering which executive branch staff are the authors of the latest National Security Strategy document. Does anyone here know? There’s no indication in Bacevich’s article.
April 18th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Take a guess as to which one I meant. Given my antipathy to Bush and Company it should be obvious.
April 18th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Euston Manifesto violation alert! Euston Manifesto violation alert!
For violation of principle B.6., I’ve fingered one Andrew Bacevich for declarations of anti-Americanism:
“In particular, they can’t deal with the actual record of American history, in which the United States has sought and used its power for purposes not always supportive of peace, liberty, and the well-being of humankind.”
(cue “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” scream…)
April 18th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Marc, this post would be a LOT more “real” if you would list at least two or three of the biggest lessons learned from Vietnam.
For me, “more troops” & occupation — prolly a mistake. Having the US take total responsibility, rather than the locals, Vietnamese or Iraqis, seems a mistake.
Nation building in the face of terrorists/ guerrillas willing to kill civilians is a SLOW, LONG process.
Isolationism is a reasonable international position, but in fighting the Barbary Pirates almost 200 years ago, the USA began influencing the world. Richard has it right — how many anti-war folk really want to pull out of the UN, accept Russia, China, and a nuclear Iran dominating the world; and never fight in foreign lands to stop genocide?
There is the “defense free rider” issue — since the rest of the West knows the US will do the heavy lifting, why do anything?
And then Jcummings blames the US for the UN failing to stop genocide (prolly would be unhappy were a neo-con to accuse him of being unpatriotic).
The UN is a failure, and a much bigger failure in stopping genocide than the USA has been. With even less democracy, less accountability, and generally more overpaid bureaucracy.
(Though I, too, call for an international org to stop genocide — I’d like a Human Rights Enforcement Group, but democracies only. USA, India, UK, Japan, Australia — coalitions of willing.)
Reg “can find no other” — because when it’s explained, over and over and over, there’s not agreement about the explanation.
Let me try, again. Iraq did not have “imminent” WMDs, but it was a threat to get them. It had attacked a neighbor, and was required by the end of Gulf War I to prove it had no WMDs.
The burden of proof, as evidenced by most of the 16 UN SC resolutions, was on Saddam.
Saddam never proved he had no WMDs.
Plus he was a terrible monster — so exporting democracy to Iraq was a noble, idealistic action taken by Bush.
For life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of profit, the security of a major oil supply. To shake up a twisted dictatorial Islamic Middle East which was, without much Soviet pressure, increasingly a threat to Americans. In America.
The inability to see that booting Saddam was truly good, though costly, is a reason most reasonable folk don’t trust most anti-war folk.
Was the cost worth it? Is it ever? What was Chou En Lai’s response about the French Revolution — ‘too soon to tell’?
April 18th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
RightWingers only know how to cut-and-run….they did it in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I and will “be forced” to do it in Iraq.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
“Let me try, again. Iraq did not have “imminent†WMDs, but it was a threat to get them.”
Try again. Implying an imminent threat i.e. one that could present itself toot suite and not at some nebulous deade in the future was the issue at hand. This was far far from the case even as it looed from what we could see. Imaginary weapons cause no harm.
April 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
TGLD – *Reg “can find no other†— because when it’s explained, over and over and over, there’s not agreement about the explanation.*
I have absolutely no idea what this “quote” was gleaned from or what this person is talking about. But then, what else is new ?
And of course there’s been “no comment” from this corner on my earlier posts on Darfur directed at his recycled tirades against liberals on that subject. But then, what does one expect ?
April 18th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
My comment seems all fucked up as I cut and pasted some text. I hope its legible….
Bacevich, to me, along with Chalmers Johnson and Chomsky, is probably the most important commentators around right now. A “Catholic Conservative” who cites C Wright Mills. Very heterodox.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
Tom Grey –
I’m not American, but I am a Canadian patriot. Read a book byCanadian retired General Romeo Dallaire called Shaking Hands with the Devil. Dallaire was one of the first to discover the Rwandan genocide, and he firmly blames the US. Its a matter of historical record, agreed upon by mainstream US sources like Samantha Power, others, that the US did all it could to prevent the UN from responding to the Rwanda genocide.
The US also actually supported Pakistan when it comitted genocide in what became Bangladesh (was East Pakistan) and did all it could to stop the UN from helping at the titme. If not for George Harrison, many people would never have heard of it.
The US (and the Soviet Union during the Cold War) is the chief obstacle to creating a multinational military/police agency to tackle genocide.
April 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
“If the mainspring of popular government in peacetime is virtue, amid revolution it is at the same time [both] virtue and terror: virtue, without which terror is fatal; terror, without which virtue is impotent. Terror is nothing but prompt, severe, inflexible justice; it is therefore an emanation of virtue. It is less a special principle than a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most pressing needs.
It has been said that terror was the mainspring of despotic government. Does your government, then, resemble despotism? Yes, as the sword which glitters in the hands of liberty’s heroes resembles the one with which tyranny’s lackeys are armed? Let the despot govern his brutalized subjects by terror; he is right to do this, as a despot. Subdue liberty’s enemies by terror, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is the despotism of liberty against tyranny. Is force made only to protect crime? And is it not to strike the heads of the proud that lightning is destined?â€
Little did we know that we are currently pursuing a Robespierre policy of political morality?
Our military has been perverted into a crusading force whose mission is to convert the world into our NEW RELIGION– American corporate capitalism. This crusading mission is to proselytize all sovereign nations, so that every country adapts our most cherished value; PROFITS AT ALL COST!
Corporate capitalism has assumed a theological fervor, so that indoctrination of all populations takes precedence, and lends justification to all illegitimate actions– preemptive strikes are now acceptable; torture of detainees at Guantanamo is excused and the devastation of Iraq and Afghanistan is forgotten.
It’s interesting that Bacevich’s book is a topic for discussion, it has been sitting on my desk, waiting to be read. I was attracted to the book after reading a synopsis about its content—his concern is that the military is no longer used to just protect us, but to coerce our world view on all governments, resulting in endless “long wars†and a failed state.
April 18th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
“that the US did all it could to prevent the UN from responding to the Rwanda genocide.”
Why? What would be the point in that? I can see not getting involved in such a local mess but that? I also doubt Power says this so unless you can produce her thought process here, caveat lector invoked.
April 18th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
“Realism” is a romantic notion, but its classical and new school philosophies in practice have proven to be statist failures. It is fortunate for the European Union that their member states did not reanimate this old Metternick/Bismark/Richard Nixon/Pat Buchanan dinosaur shell. It’s difficult to believe that a the blog master of a blog that I once considered to be always irreverant and thought provoking would give positive lip service to a pseudo-theology that:
*holds the United Nations to be an illegitmate body that the U.S. should revoke all ties to completely
*espouses isolationist policies that would place unlimited tariffs on goods and kill any free trade agreements, including those negotiated in good faith (remember Nixon’s protectionist tariffs, and the results?)
*advocates the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Geneva Conventions and all international criminal courts, including the World Court
*relegates all international environmental bodies, including those set up to deal with climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, to the ash can of history.
Bloody rubbish.
As for Bacevich, I won’t comment on him since I have never read any of his books – nor will I ever, even in a stuck elevator – and I will not peruse a website of a periodical run by a man who called Hitler “a man of great courage” to read his article.
I did read an article by him in the Boston Globe late last year, and I thought that it was interesting but short on substance.
April 18th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
good lord, David – Bacevich has been published in American Conservative, The Nation, National Review, New Republic and Foreign Affairs – and blogged for Huffington Post – among others. Clearly he’s a thinker of some substance if he’s taken seriously across such an unlikely spectrum. You can say what you will about Pat Buchanan – and most of it will be as true as it is ideologically unseemly – but some of the best analysis of the neo-con agenda and the irrationality of the Iraq war from a variety of angles has been published in “his” mag. Their “social conservatism” is from another planet, the isolationism tips over the edge, but the trad-con critique of BushCo’s hubristic militarism and imperial dreams/delusions has a lot of merit. Personally, I believe that the essence of the conservative critique of radicalism of any stripe – someone, say, like Michael Oakeshott – is a counterbalance that people on the left should always give due consideration so as not to assume too much, bite off more than they should, attempt to either outsmart history or assume it’s a force inevitably “on their side”, or indulge themselves in moral grandiosity.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:53 am
Don’t forget New Left Review – he goes from left to right, and not at all anti-UN. He’s less a realist than an anti-imperialist who respects international law.
April 19th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Even Bill Clinton acknowledged the US fucked up over Rwanda. Power is clear about this in her book, but more vividly, Romeo Dallaire, and Linda Melvern.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Well Clinton meant he should have gone in, not that he prevented the UN from doing so for christ’s sake. Don’t bite off more than you can chew.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:59 am
Again, this is historical record, and I challenge anyone to disprove my contention.
April 19th, 2006 at 10:57 am
Grey wrote:
“Let me try, again. Iraq did not have “imminent†WMDs, but it was a threat to get them. It had attacked a neighbor, and was required by the end of Gulf War I to prove it had no WMDs.
The burden of proof, as evidenced by most of the 16 UN SC resolutions, was on Saddam.
Saddam never proved he had no WMDs.
Plus he was a terrible monster — so exporting democracy to Iraq was a noble, idealistic action taken by Bush.
For life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, the pursuit of profit, the security of a major oil supply. To shake up a twisted dictatorial Islamic Middle East which was, without much Soviet pressure, increasingly a threat to Americans. In America.
The inability to see that booting Saddam was truly good, though costly, is a reason most reasonable folk don’t trust most anti-war folk.”
I’m just curious. Do you see your reasons as being close to defining an imperial war of aggression, or not? Nothing against imperial wars of aggression, mind you, I’m just wondering about how you view your position. I don’t know you or your background and only occasionally lurk on these boards, so I don’t mean offense.
April 19th, 2006 at 11:32 am
“Don’t forget New Left Review – he goes from left to right, and not at all anti-UN. He’s less a realist than an anti-imperialist who respects international law.”
He very much is a realist as he proudly calls himself one (Late last year between October and the end of the year he wrote an article in the Boston Globe called “The Realist Persuasion” where he praised its origins and applications) (It was published in. November 06 of 2005, found it).
And while he may not be the equivalent of other old school, hardcore Catholic conservatives like Buchanan, he shares their realist beliefs regarding the UN, NATO, and free trade agreements.
I have respect for genuine conservatives, especially Mark Hatfield, the former Republican Senator from Oregon whom I recall fondly standing alone on the floor attacking Reagan’s military pursuits around the world. However, Bacevich rubs me wrong.
As for appearing in the periodicals that are mentioned above…Robert Byrd has had editorials published in the Nation and Mother Jones, yet his domestic and foreign records are atrocious. Nat Hentoff has a regular column in the Progressive, but it is almost devoted exclusively to criticizing the Bush record on violating civil liberties. In my hometown newspaper, however, he has columns regularly printed which attack Democrats and progressives, while praising Bush and his supposedly great civil rights record. Talk about split personalities.
April 19th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
I challenged you to prove it. The burden isn’t mine. Prove the US prevented the UN or others from intervening in Rwanda. And just what the hell is stopping them now? The invisible hand of Adam Smith?
April 19th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
I cited sources. Look em up – Romeo Dallaire. Linda Melvern. Stephen Lewis.
April 19th, 2006 at 1:56 pm
And Bacevich does not at all seem opposed to international law, if he’s not a fan of the UN itself.
July 20th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Ein Schloss, Ein poker Wurst, Ein Kopf !bjx
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! uamjgghhhi
March 5th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
Am I able to get similar results as the dentist would give me?