The New American Militarism

Andrew Bacevich wrote a recent book called The New American Militarism which sounds like a very interesting read. Here is a rather disturbing quote:

Since the end of the Cold War, opinion polls surveying public attitudes towards national institutions have regularly ranked the armed services first. While confidence in the executive branch, the Congress, the media and even organized religion is diminishing, confidence in the military continues to climb."

Sean Paul from The Agonist points out:

On a Burkean level, I worry about this. Why? Well, the historical minded among you will recall that in one of his essays before Napoleon rose to power in France, Burke warned the French of just such an attitude. He said it would lead to a Caesar-like man rising in their midsts.

If you are not concerned about the risk of a military coup in the US, then you are naive.


The Manifestations Of Militarism
Sean-Paul Kelley | San Antonio | April 24
The Agonist - In Andrew Bacevich's recent book, "The New American Militarism," he identifies four ways in which our militarism manifests itself in our body politic and the world.
The first is obvious,"in the scope, cost, and configuration of America's present-day military establishment."
For example, he notes that the Pentagon budget today is 12% larger "than the average defense budget of the Cold War." He blames this on the Neo-Con obsession of preventing a 'peer-competitor.' As if, over the course of several decades we could actually do this. One immutable fact of history: great powers rise and great powers fall.
More after the jump.
-
By Sean Paul in USA: Military Issues on Sun Apr 24th, 2005 at 01:41:42 PM PDT
The second manifestation of our militarism comes from an "increased propensity to use force, leading, in effect, to the normalization of war." He adds that since the rise of the New Wilsonianism (more on this in another post), "self-restraint has all but disappeared." He cites, for example, that from 1945 through 1988, "large-scale U.S. military actions abroad totaled a scant six . . . [but that since 1989 to the present] featured nine major military interventions."
The third manifestation of our militarism is what he calls a "new aesthetic of war." One citation is more than enough to exemplify this:
Given access to sufficient information, man could regain control of war, arresting its former tendency to become total.
Now, this is a worthy goal to aspire to, no doubt.
However (cliche alert), war is hell. War is not something that you can plan outright. You can't know all of the contigencies in war. And anyone who thinks they can is either Donald Rumsfeld or God.
The fourth and final manifestation of militarism that Bacevich identifies is how the new aesthetic of war has resulted in an "appreciable boost in the status in military institutions and soldiers themselves."
Again, prima facie, this isn't a bad thing. Especially considering the battering our soldiers took after Vietnam. But it has led some soldiers to become outright insubordinate and others to become extremely political.
Here are two egregious examples. As to the former, Colin Powell's interference with the civilain policy making of Clinton during the "gays in the military flap" should have led, in my eyes, to Powell's, like MacArthur before him, cashiering.
An example of the latter (politicization) is General Boykin, the guy who said, "my God is bigger than his God," or something to that affect. This is very disturbing behaviour and is not limited to the MSM's Left-Right dichotomy.
This quote from Bacevich is especially disturbing:
Since the end of the Cold War, opinion polls surveying public attitudes towards national institutions have regularly ranked the armed services first. While confidence in the executive branch, the Congress, the media and even organized religion is diminishing, confidence in the military continues to climb."
On a Burkean level, I worry about this. Why? Well, the historical minded among you will recall that in one of his essays before Napoleon rose to power in France, Burke warned the French of just such an attitude. He said it would lead to a Caesar-like man rising in their midsts.
I think Americans should be very concerned about this. This isn't about partisanship. This is about the fate of our Republic and our representative democracy.
Throughout history, how often have generals attempted to resolve seemingly intractable political squabbles? I can name probably a dozen off the top of my head.
It can happen here. Don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.
More on the rise of the New Wilsonianism tomorrow. Don't click that mouse.