In an earlier post, I promoted the book The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced By War authored by Andrew J. Bacevich. (Oxford University Press: New York, 2005). Richard asked for a flavor of the argument. That I will do, but this will not be a book review because I’m not knowledgeable enough about military matters for that. My experience in the military was as a radar operator. I will attempt to be fair, but will leave it to others to discuss weaknesses in Bacevich’s arguments. Also, as both a “just war” proponent and a strong war skeptic, I was inclined to support most of Bacevich’s conclusions from the outset. Such limits my ability to approach the book objectively.
Bacevich says that “present-day American militarism has deep roots in the American past†but that once there were statesmen such as Robert J. LaFollette and Robert A. Taft who stood up squarely to oppose war. Many modern war critics, such as John Kerry, focus more on tactics than on morality, he says.
Indeed, Bacevich writes that at one time, America considered war, even if required, as evidence that diplomatic efforts had failed. In modern U.S. policy, war doesn’t just arise out of diplomatic failures, but is a means to form foreign policy. (It should be noted that the United Methodist Book of Discipline Social Principles specifically rejects “war as an instrument of foreign policy.â€)
A recurring theme of the book is that the new American militarism can be more directly traced to a perversion of the Wilsonian (Woodrow Wilson, U.S. President from 1913 to 1921) vision, sometimes known as Wilsonianism. It rests on the notion that the rest of the world is to support American policies because “God has willed it.†While Wilson may have been arrogant in believing that God destined the United States to action, it should be noted that Wilson himself was a “reluctant warrior†and believed in diplomacy and negotiations. Indeed he advanced the League of Nations, which the U.S. refused to join. Further, Wilson’s greatest concentration was to bring world peace – to end all war. He wasn’t insistent that every other country have the same exact same vision as America, though he did want to see the “world remade in America’s image and left permanently at peace.†Thus, Bacevich classifies Wilson as an “ideologue.â€
Some administrations, like that of John F. Kennedy, were fairly “self-restrained.†He says that Kennedy’s administration, despite his strong language of “pay any price, bear any burden†was in reality “marked over-all by sober-minded pragmatism.†On the basis of the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam, some might disagree with Bacevich’s assessment, of course. Nevertheless, Bacevich says that Wilsonianism not only endured but became even more dangerous because “its natural skepticism about arms and armies disappeared.â€
Why? Bacevich cites several factors, among which are:
1. The American public felt humiliated by its loss in Vietnam and was ripe for a politician to come along who would wrap his candidacy in the flag and patriotism.
2. In 1979, just four years after the fall of Saigon, Americans felt humiliated again by the painful experience of the Iran hostage matter and the failure in the desert to rescue the hostages. This left Americans thirsty for bold and hopeful leadership, which most didn’t think they were getting in Jimmy Carter.
3. Ronald Reagan, with the help of others, was able to turn Jimmy Carter’s 1979 speech calling for sacrifice to reduce the energy imbalance into a “defeatist†speech in which we no longer believed in ourselves or the possibilities of “limitless growth.†Reagan successfully wed the ideas of business growth and military growth by wrapping both in the mantle of patriotism. As president, Bacevich says, “Ronald Reagan figured out he could use military and patriotic imagery to boost national esteem.â€
4. Technological advances in warfare and the all-volunteer armed services have permitted more Americans to “enjoy war from afar.â€
5. On the whole, today’s military service people (both officers and enlisted), as a by-product of the all-volunteer service, have arrived at the view that they are morally above the rest of society. Bacevich quotes retired Admiral Stanley Arthur, to the effect that such views “are not healthy in an armed forces serving a democracy.â€
6. The United States has taken on the viewpoint expressed by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright when she inquired of Colin Powell of what was the purpose of a great military “if we can’t use it.â€
7. More recent U.S. presidents have obscured the distinction that they command as civilians. Increasingly, presidents put on military garb, surround themselves will military trappings, etc.
8. Americans were emboldened by “liberating a small desert oligarchy (Kuwait) from the clutches of a ham-handed invader possessed of a large invading army but no nuclear weapons.â€
9. Vietnam leader Creighton Abrams, post-Vietnam sought to bring about post-Vietnam military reforms that would make it harder to convince civilians to choose the option of war. The Abrams view developed into the [Caspar] “Weinberg Doctrine†(Weinberg was defense secretary in the Reagan Administration) that there has to be a vital national interest at stake, that there must be popular and congressional support, and clear goals. Colin Powell, with modifications such as the use of overwhelming force, embraced the Weinberg doctrine, which essentially evolved into the Powell Doctrine. Powell opposed the 1991 Gulf War but his leadership in the war made him a national hero. Bacevich says Powell “the reluctant warrior†inadvertently turned the U.S. more militaristic because the lesson many Americans embraced post-war was that “military might promised to be not less but more useful.†Bacevich says Powell also underestimated the determination of many civilian leaders to intrude into military matters and the desire of many military leaders to be involved in political leadership. He says that with a few notable exceptions, the outcome is a modern military not particularly hesitant to go to war.
10. That with the rising Pentagon expenditures in the 1990’s, the military experienced demands to “show some tangible return on the nation’s investment.â€
11. Donald Rumseld arrived in office bent on re-establishing civilian control over the military (as provided for in the U.S. Constitution) but ended up largely ignoring the military’s counsel all together.
12. The rise of the neo-conservatives determined to transform the whole world. Bacevich says many of the neo-conservatives were social liberals with strong beliefs in the use of state power to achieve their domestic goals and simply transferred that outlook to the international scene. He says that for the neo-conservatives “America is the one true universal church, the declaration of 1776 tantamount to sacred Scripture, and the District of Columbia the Holy See.†Further, he says that the neo-conservatives have a simplistic understanding of the response to evil. He says neo-conservatism can be boiled down to “1. evil exists; 2. it must be resisted; and 3. military force is the only way to resist it.†(Thus out with diplomacy, negotiation, etc.)
13. The arrival of the viewpoint, advanced by neo-conservative and former leftist Norman Podhoretz of Commentary Magazine that a legitimate way to advance one’s view was in “ruthless demolition of any viewpoint inconsistent with the neo-conservative version of truth, usually portrayed as self-evident and beyond dispute.†(Consider the Republican campaign against Vietnam War hero Max Cleland, who was viciously attacked as soft on terrorism simply because he raised a few questions about the approach to the war on terror.) Whereas liberal John F. Kennedy and conservative Barry Goldwater were personal friends, Podhoretz instructed contempt for anyone with different ideas. Bacevich considers the neo-conservatives as far to the right of Ronald Reagan, and in fact that they privately condemned him as too timid in foreign policy and military matters, but because of the end of the Cold War, they have publicly embraced him as their hero. Thus, militarism has risen because much public debate has been intimidated or stifled.
14. That Americans have bought into the myth that the entire world desires the same things we desire. Bacevich points out, though, that American democracy as practiced has resulted in an “ever widening gap between rich and poor.†Thus, the neo-conservatives may not be considering that imposing our way of life on the rest of the world might create massive social unrest.
15. That Americans have both accepted and spread the myth that God has singled out Americans to be “his new chosen people†and that the U.S. is unparalleled as the agent of God’s grace.
16. Religious instincts of the past were often balanced between the tendency toward war and pacifist leanings, but that with the advent of World War II there arose in the U.S. a fundamentalist movement to transform the world based on Christian ideals to be found in the Bible and by war if necessary. Fears from the Cold War accelerated this movement as the majority of religious leaders, but particularly “evangelicalsâ€, took strong anti-Communist stands. Over time, this morphed into a general pro-military alignment, particularly among more conservative Christians.
17. That more conservative Christians came to see skepticism of the military as a challenge to authority and thus an undermining of society in general. Over time, conservative Christians associated those who questioned the military with those who supported abortion, “women’s libâ€, homosexual rights, the Supreme Court’s school prayer decision, and “separation of church and state†in general. Less than whole-hearted enthusiasm for military action represented a part of America’s moral decline. In fact, before the fall of the Soviet Union, many Christian leaders believed that America’s moral decline made us more vulnerable to being defeated by the Communists. Further, it became the conviction of many that the military was a necessary defense against atheism.
18. While many of the neo-conservatives have little interest in religion, they have found a willing partner in some conservative evangelical Christians. Indeed, Bacevich writes that George Bush looks at the war on terror through a religious lens, rather than an ideological one. With respect to the Middle East in particular, the views of many conservative or fundamentalist Christians regarding Israel and prophecy have driven an increasing militarism. Further, Bacevich says that many conservative Christians lend such unqualified support to Israel that they have carved out exceptions to the “just war tradition†and approved suppression of Palestinian uprisings at any cost. Thus, the U.S. military has a role to play in Christ’s return.
19. Because military action is about “right versus wrong” neo-conservatives and many Christian conservatives among others have decided that popular support of a war effort (from the Weinberg/Powell doctrines) is no longer a requirement to engage in war.
Bacevich’s book is very nuanced and I can only touch on some of the basics here. I do not pretend that my overview is comprehensive. I also respect that pacifists will find the book lacking in many areas simply because they oppose all military action, whereas Bacevich comes from the “just war†tradition.
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
Eugene McKinnon 09.28.06 at 5:39 am
Sounds like a well thought out argumentative book. That is true about Wilson. He did believe in diplomacy and even when the US entered WWI they entered on the premise on “peace without victory.” The Treaty of Versailles which Wilson helped draft was voted down by Congress. And before Roosevelt the Americans were quite content with what land they got from the Manifest Destiny and thought they would leave it at that, but jingoistic opportunists found Central America and Cuba rather inviting.
Blessings,
Eugene McKinnon
Kim 09.28.06 at 7:58 am
Thanks for that, Joel. I saw the book in the American Studies section of the Swansea University bookshop yesterday, looked through it, and may have bought it but for two reasons. First, it was hardcover and therefore expensive. But, second, was the expense worth it for a thesis that, for many of us, seems rather obvious, though - especially for non-Americans - one must be immensely grateful to Bacevich for spelling it out in such detail, making his cumulative case (as you sketch it) so strong that (in my view) it is indeed undeniable. Especially important, I think, is the author’s historical genealogy, tracing the current militarism back to Wilson (in fact, its roots lie even deeper in the American psyche and goes under the name of American exceptionalism with its repugnant theological foundation of a “chosen people” and a nation with a “mission”). During WW1 Wilson said: “America has the infinite [note the divine predicate] privilege of fulfilling her destiny and saving the world.” Pure Bush, isn’t it? Bacevich’s post-Vietneam analysis is excellent, accurate and cogent, and Americans definitely need reminding of Bush’s John the Baptist, Ronald Reagan. I happened to be in the US for Reagan’s funeral and almost puked over the television.
Anyway, cheers for the review - and thanks for saving me a few quid!
Richard 09.28.06 at 9:14 am
Thanks for that Joel - a very useful overview. Some of the argument reminded me of George Lakoff, especially the neo-con response to evil. Good stuff, right on the button as far as I can tell.
Lee 09.28.06 at 1:56 pm
I really enjoyed Bacevich’s book - probably my top political book of 2005. (And it is now available in paperback, btw) One of the helpful things, I think, is that he shows how deep the roots of this “new militarism” go and how both parties are complicit in it.
One interesting thing about Bacevich is that he’s a conservative West Point grad who served in Vietnam, all of which may give his argument more credibility to many Americans than if you handed them (say) the latest Noam Chomsky. Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem like his book has gotten the attention that it deserves.
J 09.28.06 at 2:16 pm
It looks like a pretty standard list of leftist gripes about American society to me. A few thoughts:
On point 5, I know a lot of people in the military, mostly officers, and I disagree with his contention, but he is on to something. I would argue that the American public has taken that view, not military personnel.
On point 11, there are several competing, incompatible theories on how military forces should be structured, and, as in politics, adherents of one theory tend to believe adherents of one of the others are incompetent, if not evil. Thus, the theories Rumsfeld advocates in that area meet some stiff resistance from some of our (US) flag grade officers. Calling that situation “ignoring the military’s counsel all together” demonstrates a misunderstanding of what’s happening there.
On point 14, I will confess to being mystified about the “gap” busiiness. I want to eliminate poverty and misery, even if it increases the gap between the rich and the poor (well, I guess the poor wouild be middle class then). The preoccupation with inequality suggest the author has a problem with envy or covetousness. I think it was Greg Mankiw who asked, “would it be acceptable to you to completely eliminate poverty in our society, if the steps to do so caused the top 1% of wage earners to become billionaires?”
On point 19, the popular support requirement is so self evident that I have to wonder how he came to this conclusion. My guess is by defining support as enthusiasm, when it can take the form of resignation as well.
J 09.28.06 at 2:28 pm
Oops. I didn’t know Bacevich’s background, so I’ll revise point 11: He understands perfectly what’s going on there, and evidently disagrees with Rumsfeld’s theory of force structure. Did he really say “ignored the military’s counsel”?
DH 09.28.06 at 2:41 pm
Kim, it is interesting that Wilson was a Democrat. To say he was “pure Bush” seems strange. I feel Americans are called to promote Democracy and freedom. What are we to do let terroism keep growing? No one is going to prevent terrorism except by force? How can one negotiate with terrorist? You can’t their desire is to take over the world and have an Islamic Fascist state. I used to be in the middle on the term “Islamicfascist” until I saw Hezbollah and Iranian troops goosestepping like the Third Reich and the statements by the Mullah that word for word seem so similar to Hitlers speechs except add Islamic state. Have you read, heard or reviewed those speeches? If you do you can see the similarities for yourself. I think the left isin denial with regard to terrorists and their particular desires and it promotes an attitude of Laisse Faire reminecent of the time leading up to WWII (I’m including the US in this on the Laisse Faire).
DH 09.28.06 at 2:41 pm
I’m definitely not in love with war but if it is necessary like it is today then it is a necessary evil. I’m sick of the overgeneralizations. They must stop.
Kim 09.28.06 at 3:48 pm
DH,
Democrat, Republican - Bacevich’s point (as Lee observes) is precisely that both parties are complicit in militarism. In any case, however - on Wilson and Bush - my comparison is on the single quote (read before you type!) and, yes, by implication that both presidents suffer from the theological pathology of American exceptionalism. Or are you going to tell me that Bush would not agree entirely with what Wilson said?
As for negotiating with terrorists - the only people you can’t negotiate with are church organists.
Lee 09.28.06 at 4:44 pm
On “negotiating with terrorists,” I think any reasonable person will agree that there are some hard-core types who are truly undeterrable in their intentions. I’m not a pacifist, so I think some sort of military action may be justified in tracking down those people.
However, what we Americans have been (IMO) insufficiently concerned about are the fence-sitters, lukewarm supporters, and persuadables in the Arab & Muslim worlds who have been alienated by US policies (the war in Iraq being Exhibit A). When we turn these people against us we increase the pool of support and source of recruits for terrorism. They should be the focus of our thinking about what policies to pursue. Recall how the recent Israeli incursion into Lebanon effectively united the populace against them, even those factions previously most hostile to Hezbollah.
Bacevich’s strongest point (again, IMO) is that the USA’s propensity to use military force as a routine tool of policy, rather than a true last resort, results in “blowback” in the form of terrorism and other bad stuff. This in no way exculpates the terrorists themselves, but it requires us to be smart about the consequences of our policies (Chalmers Johnson has also documented this extensively).
DH 09.28.06 at 7:14 pm
Lee, I see what you are saying and agree to a point but I still feel that we must dractically impede the ability of terrorists to do the harshest of attacks. I feel in Iraq and Afghanistan we have done just that. By those actions we have put “the feet to the fire” against governments who support terrorism around the world. It appears the amount of terrorism around the world since the fall of the Taliban and Saddam has been reduced. There are insurgents but the media reposrt never mention the positives of an addtional 5 million female students in Iraq, additional hospitals being built, better infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are insurection problems but it has not changed these facts I just mentioned previously.
You mentioned “unite the populace against Israel toward Hezbollah. However, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Jordon, etc. never condemned outright Israel for the attacks. They mentioned that Hezbollah must be dealt with and Israel has a right to defend themselves. However, they did say Israel went overboard in the response but they never said that the initial attack from Israel wasn’t justified.
Not a last resort? Saddam violated the 1992 UN sanctions multiple times.
I don’t see in a majority way the Iraqi people turned against us. A minority are insurgents. That is true but it isn’t the majority. We must never overstate the minority.
Steve 09.28.06 at 7:17 pm
J,
The argument that anyone who criticizes income inequality is guilty of “envy and covetousness” is disingenous. Why not address the substance of the argument rather than trying to pluck the speck you perceive to be in the author’s eye?
I doubt many people would disagree with the idea that it would be wonderful if all of the world’s poor could become middle class while the very rich became billionaires. But the facts on the ground show something profoundly different. The world has 2 billion people living in dire poverty, despite the world being wealthier than at any time in its history. In the United States, middle class incomes have stagnated and poverty rates have increased over the course of the past 30 years while income inequality has increased dramatically. The prior 30 year period saw exactly the opposite - rising middle class incomes, decreasing poverty, following lock-step with decreasing income inequality.
Empirically, the argument that “a rising tide lifts all boats” has been proven to be wrong. A rising tide only lifts all boats if the competitive environment is not skewed toward the “haves,” (through labor and taxation policies, primarily) as it has been since the 1970s, at least in the United States.
DH 09.28.06 at 7:21 pm
If America didn’t respond or support the defense of Democratic nations like they did nations that are currently Democratic to some extent would not be free and Democratic to some extent aka Iraq, Afghanistan, Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, France, UK, Italy, Belgium, Netherland, Luxemborg, Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, post WWII Turkey, Greece, Papua New Guinea, etc. I think I covered as many as I could where American involvment has resulted in current free Democracy.
Steve 09.28.06 at 7:31 pm
DH,
One note: according the the U.S. government’s own report on terrorism incidents, 2005 was the deadliest year for terrorist attacks in the world’s history, with almost 3 times the number of attacks (I believe it is 2800) as in the period pre-9/11, and double the number of attacks in 2001.
From what I can see, the only way to truly win the war on terror is to pursue aggressive international police action to track down terrorists and stop attacks, coupled with policies which seek to address the conditions which provide “safe-havens” for terrorists - namely, poverty and injustice. It is the latter two factors which allow terrorists to gain the goodwill and support of the communities which shelter them (especially in the case of Hamas and Hezbollah, who actually provide materially for their people).
Military action tends to do more harm to our cause than good, as it alienates the very people we need to win over by killing their family members and plunging them even more deeply into poverty. It also destabilizes the states against which it is used, creating further breeding grounds for terrorism.
DH 09.28.06 at 7:41 pm
UN police action? come on UN doesn’t have the guts to do what is needed to slove the problems you mentioned. America is doing the final two you mentioned. Just because it isn’t as “international” like you like doesn’t change that it is for the good for the US to track the terrorists down like they are.
Also, just to focus on lives lost rather than quality of life seems short-sighted. I would much rather die fighting for freedom than to get a bunch of food from terrorists who are basically bribing people to support them. People seem to fall for the bribe as opposed to doing something about it to prevent governments from abusing its people.
I think if you ask Musharaff and Karazaithey would say their nations would be worse if the US pulled out or didn’t do what they did. Come this shortsightedness is more than I can bear.
DH 09.28.06 at 7:41 pm
Steve, should income balance be done out of ones heart as opposed to by force? We all know how communism doesn’t work. You mention US in the economic part. The fact is unemployment is under 5%. Have you looked at unemployment figures under Socialist countries (10%, 15%, 20%). It doesn’t make sense to point this out when the gap is decreasing. In fact the poor in the US are paying a less percentage of their income in taxes since the 1970s. So the poor are able to obtain more money after tax than otherwise. You mention 1970’s? You just lost the argument. Double digit inflation, unemployment, etc. Inflation people working more for goods they needed and unemployment people not having a job to pay for the goods they need. When nations look into focuing on unemployment and inflation then and only then will the poor be helped. Unless you wnat to be arobin hood and steal money from the wealthy to give to the poor when the money was made legitamately. Steve, your argument doesn’t make sense in light of the alternatives.
Beth 09.28.06 at 7:46 pm
You know what is more than I can bear? Christians who think that violence is the answer. Violence is never the answer, in any circumstances, to anything.
J 09.28.06 at 8:20 pm
“The argument that anyone who criticizes income inequality is guilty of “envy and covetousness†is disingenous.”
Do you question my belief in that premise?
Why not address the substance of the argument rather than trying to pluck the speck you perceive to be in the author’s eye?”
If the author made an argument, I would. That there’s an ever increasing gap between the rich and poor is an assertion. I’m certain the author (if the representation here is accurate) means to imply that there’s a connection between the two. Fine. If there is, let’s work on it. But the objective is to improve the lot of the poor, not punish the rich.
Steve 09.28.06 at 9:47 pm
DH,
Where did I say anything about the U.N.?
“International police action” = U.S. and other world governments working together to catch and capture terrorists. Basically, this is the non-military component of the U.S.’s current approach to terrorism. Of course, we could do without the torture which is also a part of this approach.
Second, where did I mention anything about communism?
Oh, I know, anyone who isn’t in favor of a flat 5 percent tax on all income and the gutting of all social welfare programs is a communist. This is another dishonest argument of the right - anyone who favors anything but absolute laissez-faire captialism is by definition a communist.
The problem with this assertion is that my argument was not for a dictatorship of the proletariat, the expropriation of all private property to the state, and brutal suppression of dissent (key features of communism). My argument was that we should strengthen the hand of organized labor in our country and yes, have a somewhat more progressive income tax structure that allows us to implement policies (such as universal health care) which would both contribute to the strengthening of the middle class AND make our businesses more competative against foreign companies which do not have a crushing health insurance tab to carry.
One last thing - in a Republic, if the people’s representatives vote for a certain marginal tax rate to become law it isn’t “by force.” It’s by ballot. There’s a big difference.
DH 09.28.06 at 9:48 pm
Beth, how about all of the times in theOT where God called the Israelites to take on all of the ites? or Jesus throwing out the moneychangers with a whip? It seems to me that Jesus used a form of violence to throw out the moneychangers. I’m not suggesting that this form of violence is wrong but to point out at times as part of God’s justice forms of violence isused as part of the redemptive process.
I can also bring up God’s judgement against Pharoah in Egypt. The goal of god on this was for Pharoah to come to the knowledge of the one true God. That was the reason for the judgement against Egypt but his heart was hard. I think this shows that at times tough love is needed for justice, redemption and the like and other times soft love is needed. Jesus is the Lion of Judah and also the Lamb of God. He opperates perfectly at different situations at the perfect times these two styles.
DH 09.28.06 at 9:51 pm
I used the term Communist then changed to socialist thereafter. I should have stated Socialist all along. I personally believe Socialism inall of its forms is inefficient in its dealing with these problems. If you read this from my post you can see that your arguments don’t hold water.
“The fact is unemployment is under 5%. Have you looked at unemployment figures under Socialist countries (10%, 15%, 20%).”
“In fact the poor in the US are paying a less percentage of their income in taxes since the 1970s. So the poor are able to obtain more money after tax than otherwise. You mention 1970’s? You just lost the argument. Double digit inflation, unemployment, etc. Inflation people working more for goods they needed and unemployment people not having a job to pay for the goods they need. When nations look into focuing on unemployment and inflation then and only then will the poor be helped.”
DH 09.28.06 at 9:53 pm
Actually it is an international police action over 65 nations are in support of the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. So
Steve 09.28.06 at 10:36 pm
DH,
A few points:
1) Jesus drove the ANIMALS from the temple with the whip, not the people. See John 2:15: “So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.”
Unless the money changers were sheep or cattle, there is no textual evidence to support him using the whip against them.
2) The United States is not Israel and has no claim to be “God’s chosen people.” And it certainly has no claim to be God. The same rules simply do not apply.
3) By “police action” I do not mean military force. Police action implies investigation and arrest. War is not, by definition, police action (well, except in the case of Team America, World Police).
DH 09.28.06 at 10:56 pm
“all from the temple area” it appears that there were others that were driven out of the temple area. The context would be “included sheep and cattle” so I think you are taking it out of context when you forget that “He drove ALLfrom the temple area” were driven out of the temple.
I wasn’t saying America was God’s chosen people or claiming to be God. I was just pointing out that God uses nations violently for His greater redemptive nad justice purpose. Heck, forthe sake of argument, I could have brought up God using Babylon in the redemptive and justice purpose from God against Israel. The analogy wasn’t that US was God’s chosen people but the concept still in play since God and His Word never change og Him using nations for His greater purpose. Just because God uses a nation for His purpose isn’t a moral statement of the nation used but does show that nations can be used irregardless of whether the nation is Godly or not Godly.
Well the fact is I could name you dozens of nations that have been successfully democratic as a result of just war used as military action: S.Korea, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Kuwait, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Germany, etc. War is not defined as police action? WWII wasn’t a police action by the world against the Third Reich and the regimes of Italy and Japan? That is a new one by me. Going into all of the wars that the US was involved in before going into war investigations into crimes against humanity and arrests by using the war was in some area or aspect a police action. That goes for any war America was involved in. It was in response to some atrocitiy toward people that needed to be dealt with after negotiations or trying to work it out were first used.
Joel 09.29.06 at 12:20 am
My life is full of meetings today, but echoing what Kim said, Bacevich makes clear that the rise of militarism has come under both parties, albeit today, Democrats are less pro-military and pro-war on the whole than Republicans. We invaded Iraq with substantial support from Congressional Democrats, whom I hope have had some sleepless nights.
Bill Clinton comes off as a Ronald Reagan wannabe in Bacevich’s book. Clinton first ran for the presidency “handicapped” by charges of draft evasion. Upon election he was loathed by much of the military and spent his entire eight years trying to woo them to his side, with a few exceptions, including his support for gays in the military, which he mostly backed away from. Clinton, whom I supported nevertheless, has almost a pathological need to be “liked” and that kept his from having the more innovative solutions to problems. He did try fairly hard on a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, however, and was more supportive of diplomacy and the United Nations than the current president.
Joel 09.29.06 at 3:05 am
J,
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that where I directly qoute Bacevich, then that is exactly what he said. In other places, I am giving what I consider the gist of what I think Bacevich is getting at because he is making a contention by quoting others, etc. and it would have taken way too much space to get around to Bacevich’s point, as I understood it. Bacevich did not directly say “ignored the military’s counsel†but I think that is a fair reading of the point Bacevich is making, although I will grant that I should not have used the words “all together.” In fact, those two words are not in my notes and I should have left the passage as my notes read: “largely ignoring military advice.”
I based my conclusion on passages such as these:
“Rumsfeld and his inner circle, complained one unnamed general officer to the Washington Post, ‘refused to listen or adhere to military advice.’” (pp. 65-66)
“Perhaps worst of all, as events soon made apparent, they [top echelon of the officer corps] could count on having little say in how that conflict unfolded.” (pp. 63-64)
“…the leaders of the new Bush administration — most notably Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — were not inclined to indulge senior military officers any further.” (p63)
“The truth was that when it came to deciding when and how to employ U.S. forces, no one much cared what [Joint Chiefs of Staff chair] General Myers had to say.” (p67)
“Although members of the Bush administration professed to hold America’s fighting men and women in high regard, they evinced little patience with soldiers who counseled caution or restraint.” (p63)
“As Michael Mann has observed, ‘the notion of civilian control of the military became meaningless, cince the civilians were the leading militarists.’” (p63)
This is a matter of judgment of course, and you could easily draw a different conclusion about the relationship between Rumsfeld and the military leadership.
J 09.29.06 at 3:24 am
Joel, I didn’t mean to imply that you misrepresented anything - sorry if it looked that way. I was just curious if he actually put it in those words. I don’t doubt for an instant that he meant to convey that idea. Though I don’t know enough to have other than very general opinions about it, I do know that the force structure issue is very controversial amongst senior military personnel, and I know at least a few of them who absolutely loathe Rumsfeld because of his positions on that issue.
DH 09.29.06 at 2:21 pm
I think a rephrasing from “Invading Iraq” to Invading the Saddam regime is more appropriate.
Beth 09.29.06 at 4:36 pm
Steve, you may as well give up. DH believes in the use of violence, therefore Jesus does too, and there’s an end of it.
Kim 09.29.06 at 5:46 pm
Dh,
Your take on the invasion is positively Orwellian! And Beth is right - e.g., all that “Lion of Judah” exegetical do-do to justify Jesus as a man of violence.
DH 09.29.06 at 7:56 pm
This belief in violence didn’t start with me but with what the Bible says about it. See I don’t reject how God worked in the OT and the using of nations for justice and redemption. I believe in a trascendant God “the same yesterday, today and forever”.
So Kim, are you saying He isn’t the Lion of Judah when God’s Word says He is?
Kim, what would have happened if as nations we in the West didn’t come to the defense of “S.Korea, Japan, Papua New Guinea, Kuwait, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, France, Germany, etc. ?” under you and Beths conclusion these nations would still be controled by the Japanese Empire, Third Reich, Red China or the old Saddam regime.
It isn’t Orweilian it is coming to the defense of people who are subjected to evil regimes.
Beth 09.29.06 at 10:18 pm
Do you wear mixed fabrics, dh? Do you earn interest on your bank account? Do you sit on seats that might have had a menstruating woman on them previously? Do you eat non-kosher food? Yeah? Then don’t give us this BS about the Old Testament.
Kim 09.30.06 at 4:49 am
Hey, guys, Bacevich appears to be a mere John the Baptist: Woodward, the greater-than-Bacevich, has just arrived with the fire and wind of judgement. Good thing Bush believes in the rapture!
Joel 09.30.06 at 6:44 am
“Invading the Saddam regime?” I never knew there were so many babies and children who were a part of that regime.
Our own CIA is now reporting that the invasion of Iraq has spawned more terrorism. Surprise, surprise.
Joel 10.03.06 at 1:41 pm
Sometimes when I write that Scripture isn’t inerrant people act as if I am saying that God can make a mistake. No! Not at all. God IS truth and cannot be wrong about anything. I am only saying that rather than dictating the Bible God inspired humans to convey his Word and that humans were not 100% accurate in transmitting God’s intentions. God is infallible, incapable of error. Further, I believe it is likely that Scripture conveys 95-98% of what God intended.
For some, the Bible can’t be authoritative unless it is 100% a reflection of God’s will. For me, it is authoritative because it accurately enough conveys what God intends that I can understand in kind if not in absolute degree what God is calling us to. Does the Bible convey enough of the essentials of God’s purposes to allow me to take up the Cross with meaning and purpose, in mission, witness and faithful obedience ? Yes! Yes! Yes!
DH 10.03.06 at 4:29 pm
Nowhere does the Bible in the NT contradict the OT withregard to the use of nations for His glory. When Jesus mentioned things it was in relation to people. He never rebuked nations for coming to the defense for justice for God’s Glory.
Joel, babies and children were not part of that regime. Innocent people die in war that iswhy they say “war is hell” but that doesn’t change the necessity of evil regimes like the Saddam regime to be eliminated. Joel, you know Saddam intentionally murdered babies and children. The invasion of the Saddam regime where some innocent people were killed was not intentional. No one intentionally killed babies and children in the invasion against Saddam. Murder is the intentional killing. THere is a difference but you want to continue to villify people who are coming to the defense of the innocent.
To support Joels intent with the post, “free Saddam and lets have Saddam back in power”. Ridiculous. The only way Saddam was prevented from torturing the Iraqi people was for his regime to be eliminated and we did that and the people are able to govern themselves. Get over your predispositions.
Beth, I can mention it because the NT doesn’t change or go against the OT on these issues I brought up. God spoke to Peter on kosher meat and indirectly mixed fabrics with regard to Mosaic Law, Jesus mentions with the talent parable bank interest and Jesus touched the menstrating woman and thus clarified the OT on that. So you see I CAN mention the OT because the Jesus wouldn’t want people to come to the defense of nations under evil regimes who are murdering the innocent like Saddam.
What is your response let Saddam continue his torturing campaign when nothing couldprevent him from doing it but force? ridiculous
DH 10.03.06 at 4:29 pm
Joel, Scripture conveys 100% of what God intended.
Joel 10.03.06 at 4:52 pm
DH,
I respect what you say about Scripture but I disagree. Paul, in telling slaves to obey their master, was looking partially for a political solution to a faith dilemma. If Paul were accurately conveying God’s intentions, Paul would have forcefully condemned slavery and then explained why it had to be accomodated under these circumstances.
As for Saddam, we not only didn’t care what he was doing to civilians prior to his invasion of Kuwait, we helped supply him with weapons, including indirectly (see BNL scandal) chemical ones. Saddam was our friend, embraced thusly by Donald Rumsfeld until he invaded a country we didn’t want invaded. Saddam was slaughtering the innocent while we looked away. We did become mildly skittish when he slew the Kurds, but emphasis is on the word “mildly.”
DH 10.03.06 at 5:11 pm
Over 70% of the people were either slaves. Being an employee was not fully understood during this time. Therefore, for proper context when it mentions slaves it was inreference to the concept of the employment relationship.
On Saddam, we didn’t know what he was doing in the 1980’s and how he treated his people. It wasn’t until the Kurd slaying that we began to be concerned. Also, you failed to mention that in the 1980’s the communists were supporting the brutal regime of Iran. If we did nothing than Communism in Russia would have continued and also Russia would obtain not only Iranian oil but Iraqi oil making a greater problem in the world than the problems we have now. We would have had the current terrorism problem combined with a greater than current Soviet nuclear threat.
How can you look mildly at the invasion of Kuwait? That is a democratic monarchy that has no military? Doesn’t make sense.