The New American Militarism
 

Just finished reading The New American Militarism by Andrew J Bacevich, Phd in international relations. West Point Grad, VN and Gulf War Vet. Eye opening book. His son was KIA in May, While serving with 3rd BCT, 1st Cav It’s a must read regardless of your political position.

Why is it a must read? What is the author's thesis? How will we benefit from reading it? :munchin

Basically it covers the last thirty years from our exit in VN through the restructure of the Army. Abrams initiatives of the total force concept, to Nixon’s AVF. Neo-conservatism and it six principles, the Christian right and the rise of the PMC business. It conceptualized and explains policy and how it alters our collective freedoms. Considering his service...why not take the time?

Contracting War...Democracy at Risk
 

Contracting War...Democracy at Risk
Concept overview of Andrew J. Bacevich book, “The New American Militarism”


War is a game which were their subject wise, kings would not play. William Cowper



The carnage and suffering of WWI left an inexpungeable conceit in American foreign policy,

that vanity was: America, as savior.


President Woodrow Wilson’s vision, was of a world made in the likeness and image of America.

In a “community of nations”, eternally at peace. Modeled on the exiting Pan-American Union,

his “New Diplomacy” was a “covenant of cooperative peace” for ending man’s continual

struggle and the obsolescence of war. He believed that if America joined the League of Nation,

adopted his vision, that “this formula would result in a world of sovereign states committed to

the principles of liberal democracy and free enterprise”.1 In essence, values that were purely

American. Principles that were universal and will by god himself for America to carry forth.

This was America’s destiny in his eyes.


Providential in origin; “to make the world free at last”. This sensibility and arrogance, is not only

the begining, but the foundation of American foreign policy. Henry Kissinger noted in his book

“Diplomacy”, that “It is the drumbeat of Wilsonian idealism that American foreign policy has

marched since his watershed presidency, and continues to march to this day”.2


Wilson was reluctant, but committed, in sending troops to the slaughter. His abhorrence of war

was overcome, only by the belief that he “was acting as a divine agent”.3 He held the

“traditional” belief, that involvement of American force must be; “expedient, temporary,

reluctantly employed, and never an expression of the nation’s character”.3


In the intervening years since, America has committed it’s son’s to war 10 times. This

subordinate paradigm can justify itself only once; with its engagement in World War II. The

other nine times have been for the projection or defense of transeunt ideology. Of those, Viet

Nam is the obvious example, and the begining of the new warrior class in America.


Viet Nam was, has been, and will always be, an enigma to America. From Kennedy and the cold

war, to final end with Nixon and real politics. America has found itself at a lost to vindicate the

waste. For those of us who served, the wall is a harrowing experience to confront. The shattered

idealism, disillusionment, and severed cultural bond with our fellow citizens is best expressed,

and explained, by Hermann Goering: “Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after

all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to

drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a

communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of

the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce

the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in

every country.”4


The deception was clear and total. Disgraced by society for the atrocities of civilian leadership,

the citizenry negated its own culpability, with contempt towards its soldiers and the armed forces

as a whole. Without the absolution that a parade provides, the returning men, and the Army,

became embittered. Determined never “to allow civilian leadership to abandoned an Army in the

field again”,1 the remaining officer corp, isolate and damaged, began the long task of rebuilding

it’s psyche and force. Chief among those, was General Creighton Abrams. “Abrams chief

contribution to the post-Vietnam military reform was to begin the process of making it more

difficult for the civilian authorities to opt for war. That is, as Army chief of staff, he took it upon

himself to circumscribe the freedom of action permitted to his political masters. He did this by

making the active Army operationally dependent on the reserves”.1


The Total Force policy, as it became know, was a “lesson to the military of civilian leadership

disregarding the consul of the joint chief. “The result was , in effect, to send the Army off to

fight while leaving the country behind. Abrams intended to ensure that this would never happen

again without calling up the reserves. In short, Vietnam demonstrated that when it came to

deciding when to go to war and how to fight the civilians were not to be trusted. We all

remember the photographs of President Johnson and the Secretary of Defense Mc Namara

leaning over maps picking out the days targets.”.1


Fundamental to the total force concept is: public support for the Army when sent to war. A

committed citizenry engaged in the defense of the nation has always been a part of our history.

The Idea of a citizen-solider or Emerson’s “embattled farmer” is the image that has persisted in

the American conscienceness. In the tradition of “the minuteman”, Americans have accepted the

responsibility in defending the freedom of their fellow countrymen. It’s part of our history and

dates to the founding fathers. However, This all changed in 1973, when President Nixon created

the All Volunteer Force.


The All Volunteer Force, or AVF, was in reaction to the draft and the protest movement of the

Viet Nam war. In creating the AVF, Nixon changed the political and social dynamic of how

force would be used and how service in the armed forces would be view. No longer was it a right

of passage, or a duty to serve the nation. It became a choice. That choice presents for the first

time in our history, a professional standing army. This is not something to be taken lightly. Our

fore fathers were keenly aware of the dangers to freedom that a professional standing army

presents.



In creating the total force concept, Abrams” tied that hands of politician”.1 The All Volunteer

Force eased the bondage placed on disicion makers. No longer bound by the prerequisite of

public support. Policy execution free of restrains, could engage in deployment of force with out

the worry of protest. The Department of Defense responded to this, in 1980's, with the

Weinberger Doctrine.

continued
 

The Weinberger Doctrine, essentially was a litmus test, that require policymakers to answer the

following questions; prior to committing boots to the ground. First among them were: “to restrict

force to matters of vital national interest; to specify concrete and achievable objectives, both

political and military; to ensure popular and congressional support; to fight to win and to use

force as a last resort”.5 This doctrine was supplemented with the Powell doctrine, which add

two additional considerations. First, there must be an exit strategy, and two, the use of

overwhelming force. These two doctrines, combined with Abrams total force concept; and the

AVF, in addition to force reduction, is what produced the Private Military Contractor Industry.


Simulitantiously, as the armed forces went about creating principles and doctrines in reaction to

the Viet Nam experience, “to restore an autonomous military profession apart and even above

politics”,1 a small, but growing sentiment developed in the “politically engaged intellectual”3

community. The defeat in Viet Nam and the societal decay of the 1960's, was view by this

group. As “a weakness capable of dissolving the bonds sustaining the constitutional order”3.

Their goal was “ambitious”1, to reverse “the political and social damage of the 1960s, and

mutatis mutandis to restore American power and assertiveness on the world stage”1


Irving Kistol, of the “Standard”. Commented that “what rules the world is ideas. because ideas

define the way reality is perceived”. Commentators at the time branded the groups “neo-

conservatism”ideals, not a political movement or school of thought, but “persuasion”1 Their

ideological purpose was to see national power as a “positive good”,1 to be used in the promotion

of “American power and American ideals”.1 This purely Wilsonian idealism precept, was further

enhanced by Norman Podhoretz, at the Commentary, a monthly, design to present this

movement to the observant public. His style as editor, reflected what the neo-conservatives

would become known for: a “fiercely combative” reply, to any point of “view inconsistent with

the neo-conservative position. Portrayed as self evident and beyond dispute”.1


Neo-conservatism is based on six propositions. The first and most fundamental is history. In the

1930's prior to and with the rise of Nazi Fascism, which serves as the “Parable”.1 for the neo-

conservative position “The first truth is that evil is real. The second is, for evil to prevail requires

only one thing: for those confronted to flinch from duty”.1


The second proposition is power. Only power can confront evil. The ascent of Nazi Germany

was confront with the allies accommodation, until its march of “aggression”.1 Which eventually

required armed might to destroy the Nazi regime. Therefore, power and the will to employ it,

was deficient in the 1930's. “So the lesson was clear: at the end of the day, in international

politics there is no substitute for power, especially military power”.1

The third proposition, for Kistol, and especially Podhoretz, in the aftermath of Viet Nam, was to

prevent America from turning inward, to them, the recurring isolation position, was perilous.

Coming home was seen as disengagement, “America had a duty, and it was that of global

leadership. There were no alternatives and no substitutions. History had singled out the United

States to play a unique role as the chief instrument to advance freedom, which found its highest

expression in democratic capitalism. American ideals defined America’s purpose, to be achived

through the exercise of superior American power”.1 This third proposition is strictly Wilsonian,

America defines the universal values of mankind, but unlike Wilson, the neo-conservative’s

were under no illusions. A “Covenant of Nations” would not secure America or any nations

freedom. “Creating a peaceful world required power, not parchment”.1


The fourth proposition concerns the decay of American values at home and abroad. The

radicalism of the 1960s and 1970s, was seen by the neo-conservatives, as an assault on the

institutional structures in American society. Government, police, and the family were under

attack. The neo-conservatives position was not only to support a muscular foreign policy, but

also the “traditional values” of marriage, family, law and order, and a respect for organized

religion. “Traditional values” became the catch phrase for neo-conservatives raison d’etre. The

resurgence of institutional “Traditional values” formed the bedrock that the movement was built

upon.


The fifth proposition is: appeasement brings surrender or war. The choice to stay engaged or

withdraw, is for the neo-conservatives, no choice at all. “Crisis is permanent”1 in their view and

therefore must be managed. American power and american will, requires leadership. Which is

the Sixth and final proposition. Leadership, and “the article of faith, that men determine history,

not impersonal force”.1 Is for the neo-conservatives the only answer to the moral decay of a

society, and to call the nation to its “destiny”. For neo-conservatives, leadership is “moral

clarity”.1

Continued
 

The convergence of the military revitalization and the neo-conservatives movement, coincides

with Conservative Christian evangelicalism. Decades in the making, this movement embraces all

that the neo-conservatives express. This ready audience of evangelicals, “particular the white

evangelicals”.1 wields enormous political power as a voting block. Their position as stated by

Jerry Falwell, was “pro-life, pro family, pro-moral, and pro-America”. In a 1980 speech, Mr.

Falwell stated:

“I believe that Americans want to see this country come back to the basics, back to valves, back

to biblical morality...back to patriotism...by militarily disarming our country, we have actually

surrendering our freedom and liberties...America today is on the threshold of destruction or

surrender...Our faltering defenses show that we are permitting a godless society to emerge in

America....A political leader, as a minster of God, is a revenger to execute wrath upon those who

do evil. Our government has a right to use its armaments to bring wrath upon those who would

do evil by hurting other people”


This statement of Mr. Falwell’s, blurs a basic concept in the constitution. The seperation of

church and state. For Mr. Falwell, and other evangelical preachers, the theory of crusade warfare

takes precedence over the just war tradition, or defensive warfare. “Conservative Christian

analysts found scriptural sanctions for striking the first blow. As they saw it, preventive war has

biblical precedents”. “God is literally on Americas side, and he has empowered Americans to

act on his behalf”.1

These five converging concepts, Wilsonian idealism, Abrams total force concept, President

Nixon’s All Volunteer Force, the neo-conservative perspective and conservative Christian

evangelical movement, developed over the past seventy years, as reaction to, or cause by other

wars, has come to full fruition, with the war on terrorism.



The combination of reforming the military under the leadership of Abrams (TFC) and Nixon

(AVF), led inadvertently to a smaller, leaner, force. Recruitment being voluntary was the reason.

Another, was a higher standard set for recruits, who were required to deal with the new

21st century technology, and weapons systems. It produced an army that was, (1) professional,

and (2) one that morphed into detachment from its fellow citizenry. In addition, it solved a basic

political problem with the deployment of force. It ended the need for public support. The social

impact of the all volunteer forces, in eliminated the draft, has created a warrior class. Thomas

Friedman, of the New York Times, comments clarifies this observation.



Attending the super bowl, he was outraged that the halftime show failed to salute the men and

women in uniform, “who are overseas fighting the war on terrorism”.6 He notes the following,

“The whole burden is being born by a small cadre of Americans...The message from the white

house is: you all go about your business being Americans, pursuing happiness, spending your tax

cuts, enjoying the halftime show....and leave the war to our volunteer Army. No sacrifices

required.”6


Such an outlook, he stated, “is morally and strategically bankrupt”.6 Visiting with troops

afterwards, at “Central Command, in Tampa, left a deep impression. To visit with the American

man and women in uniform is to come away with one overriding feeling. “We do not deserve

these people, they are so much better than the country they are fighting for”.6

That realization, printed in one of the most respected Newspapers in the country, barley raised an


eyebrow. The American republic and its people, “sleep quietly knowing rough men will bring

harm to those who would threaten them in the night”.4 The threat though, is from within, as the

mission statement of the leader of a new industry, The Private Military Contractor industry, or

PMC‘s attest.



The rise of the Private Military Contractor industry, is the result of the policy shift, with

respect to, the Force needed to conduct war in the 21st century. With the advent of

advance technology, the reduction in force it was argued, was not a man power issue, standoff

weapon systems, rather than boots on the ground would win the fight. What was once considered

science fiction, is now the norm. Newton’s laws of action and reaction, were all but forgotten,

until the war on terrorism commenced.


Short on manpower and long on commitments, the DOD enlisted the Private Military

Contractors to fill the vacuum created by the All Volunteer Force. It was a seminal momment in

American history: The “outsourcing of war”. To be American, truly requires no sacrifices in the

defense of freedom. It is best left to the corporations, who’s interest is our are own.

The Vision Statement, on Blackwaters USA web site, reads: To support security, peace,

freedom, and democracy everywhere.


It’s bold statement. Wilsonian in substance, expressively Neo- conservative in attitude.



Erik Prince, Blackwater’s billionaire CEO and founder, is equally as bold. The former Platoon

commander of Seal Team 8 Stated; “ if you’re not willing to be committed to supporting humane

democracy around the world, then there’s probably a better place for you to work”.7 This

comment has to be taken into consideration with his considerable wealth and access. His ties to

the republican party are well documented, his sister Betsy, an activist and wife, of Dick De Vos,

heir to the AMWAY fortune, was chair of the Michigan Republican Party during 1990's. Mr.


Prince, intern in the White house of George H.W. Bush Sr., as well as, the arch-conservative

congressman Dana Rohrabacer, one could easily infer that Mr. Prince’s political views are

equally neo-conservative. A born-again fundamentalist Christian, he attend the religiously

conservative Hillside College, in Hillside Michigan. As a major republican contributor, and

socio-politically aligned, Blackwater’s rise to the forefront of the Private Military Contractor


industry, was never in question.



I have presented this in order to imagine the future, from the perspective of the our recent

history. In doing so, I am suggesting, (1) The Private Military Contractor industry and the

outsourcing of war, is the result of a neo-conservative interpretive perversion of Wilsonian

idealism. And (2) that it’s presence, development, and continuation, will one day replace, the

Constitutional Democracy that we know, with a warrior class, loyal to corporate Wilsonian

concepts.
















Notes:

1. Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism, Oxford Press, 2005
2. Henry Kissinger. Diplomacy, NY. NY 1994
3. President Woodrow Wilson’s War Message” April 17, 1917
4. Goggle , War Quotes
5. Richard Halloran, New York Times, November 29, 1984
6. Thomas Friedman, New York Times, January 2004
7. Erik Prince, CEO of Blackwater USA

I’d say Col. (ret) Bacevich has “issues”. From the 27 May 2007 Washington Post.:

Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...052502032.html

He’s as objective as The New York Times is respectable.

Pat

My review has nothing to do with the war, or for that matter the author, it forced me to question the orgin of policy, and the implications on our collective future. I think, not yet sure, if my reading of his essay, is correct.
That's why I posted in the first place, I was seeking input, to see if the conclusion that I came to was on point. I wasn't defending any position or person.

As for his son's death in combat, I feel he has every right to tell every elected offical to go to hell. It has always amazed me, that those who start the conflicts, never send their childern to support their belief.
We should lobby for a law, that states and forces, all elected officals to send their first born, to line units, when we as a nation, go to war. I'd bet the outcome and commitment would be radically different.

One other thought,; his outline is historical correct.

One more, have you read the book?

Additionally, your snide comment referencing the NYT in relation to his outrage,
has nothing to do with the subect matter. I think your reading of the post article is a bit shortsighted. His respect for all soldiers is evident in his book and in his comments to kerry and kennedy. Stating in essence; the exchange rate and value of American blood to elected officals.

I think you may be over-philosophizing (to make up a word) the rise of PMCs. The key factor is basic supply and demand not the rise to power of a certain school of foreign policy. Put it this way, if Al Gore and the internationalists had been in power on Sept 11th 2001, I think you'd have still seen an explosive growth in PMCs.

Penn - Quality review, thanks. Is it yours? (Not clear from reading it - take or give credit as due, it's well written.) Do I still need to read the book? Peregrino

Why so testy, Penn? You wanted opinions; you got one. It’s worth what you paid for it.

You’re not judging the author, I am. Outside of knowing who Creighton Abrams was and having worn Green, how is what he’s saying any different than what Cindy Sheehan’s been saying? She also has the right to tell every elected official to “go to hell”. We all do.

I have not read the book. And, agreeing with Peregrino on the quality of your review, I will not.

Why is my opinion of Col. Bacevich's opinion, and the The New York Times reputation, considered "snide" when his opinion of the Bush administration, the "Military Industrial Complex", and the "Neo-Cons", is not?

Pat

I know there is a presumption that those in power do not have any skin in the game, i.e. have no kids who are serving. I'm not sure if most of us are really qualified to make that assumption. I mean we can do it, but it may not be accurate. I know the under secretary of defense had a son in my son's basic training company. I believe Rumfeld's nephew is in a SF group. These are just the ones I've heard about.

When we say those making the policy do not send their children, are we assuming or do we actually know? I really do not believe it is practical for the Bush daughters to serve, especially in a combat zone. I think this was covered in a thread about Prince Charles younger son not being allowed to serve in Iraq.

I know the sons of past presidents have served in harm's way. Maybe now it is different. However, in the past a majority of elected officials were veterans. I do not believe that is the case now.

Your desire makes sense, but in an all volunteer military, it's probably impossible to require the children of elected officials to serve, but I understand your sentiment. Don't send other's children if you not willing to send your own. I guess what you're asking for is that our elected officials be people of integrity and character and exercise true leadership. For some reason I don't see that ever happening. If they had that much character and integrity, they would never be elected in the first place as they would alienate most of their fellow citizens.

Penn, you have peaked my interest. I look forward to finding out what Colonel Bacevich offers as an alternative to that which he critiques. I am comfortable with the neocon movement, but dispute some of the conclusions drawn by the author.