DWill wrote:GentleReader9,
I'm glad you're being cautious about accepting Bacevich's thesis wholesale. I, too, feel just a little reluctant to accept a causal link between Americans' conception of freedom and our foreign policy blunders.
He might be right; I'm just not sure yet. I think a key point is that he doesn't assign any permanent meaning to "freedom."

Perhaps I read it wrong, but I thought that WAS is point. The fact that what freedom is, and what it means, is a fluctuation idea in the minds of Americans. But, it's something that we ALL think we agree on i.e. every American would agree that freedom is good. It's what we call a 'mom and apple pie' statement. As such, it is easily manipulated by politicians (The evildoers hate us for our freedom, etc. Wasn't THAT a doosie!)

I think it's become something out of Orwell's 1984. Was that 'thoughtspeak?'

Well, I might have written that in a way to cause ambiguity. I'm taking him to mean that in the American mind, "freedom" is a word that always gets a pass, no matter what it compels us to do or believe from era to era. If we do something in the name of freedom, there, the act has automatic justification. I thought he was saying that previous to the second world war, freedom did not mean primarily the unfettered ability or right to consume as much as possible in pursuit of our happiness, or to police the rest oif the world. After that, it did. And to continue to enjoy those fruits of affluence, we needed to extend our power in the world, mostly because we needed to secure foreign oil supplies. Does that clear up any of the confusion?

I meant to add that Bacevich doesn't stress politicians manipulating us. He says they have gone along with us, rather than we with them. This is a feature a little different in him. We can't blame anyone but ourselves; we gave tacit approval for all the wrongheaded policies from Reagan onward.

DWill noted:

I meant to add that Bacevich doesn't stress politicians manipulating us. He says they have gone along with us, rather than we with them. This is a feature a little different in him. We can't blame anyone but ourselves; we gave tacit approval for all the wrongheaded policies from Reagan onward.

As usual your summary of the reading is clear, accurate and uncluttered with a differing personal view even when it adds a comparative context with other writers' usual stances. How do you do that, anyway? I sometimes can't even tell what it is that you think.

Politicians certainly have manipulated us, with greater or lesser successes among the various groups. If there was an element in the population they "have gone along with," they chose which element that was. But this is what a leader should be: someone who comes up with the best direction and leads rather than "going along." Instead they have manipulated small sectors strategically and successfully enough so that the "mainstream" view looks like far more of a genuine consensus than it ever is. I think we should admit that, but then once we are aware of it, take action to participate more constructively and actively in our piece of the democracy. Freedom may not be as cushy as the propaganda made it sound, but it is still a value worth working to uphold. This is where Bacevich's asking us to be accountable and take responsibility comes in handy. If we were just such helpless victims who have no means to prevent our own deceit, how would we ever be able to take our power back? We were taken advantage of at a vulnerable time by people abusing their authority and power; now we can inform ourselves and express ourselves strongly so that it doesn't happen anymore.

GentleReader9 wrote: Politicians certainly have manipulated us, with greater or lesser successes among the various groups.

You're right, and I have no reason to think Bachevich would disagree that politicians use specific manipulative ploys. But his argument is that we the people have clearly expressed our desire to have more goodies, and so our politicians have obliged by their policies and rhetoric. Accordingly, the Bush administration's use of information in the run-up to the Iraq war was manipulative; but it was not inventing a new direction for American policy, only extending one that that was in force in past Republican and Democratic administrations. That policy, Bacevich says, is closely linked with the crisis of profligacy, a crisis most definitely not created by our leaders. Thus, in the very broadest sense, we have driven the policies whose latest result is a disastrous war in Iraq.

Bachevich's argument is a strong one, I think, but is it too "thesis heavy?" That is what I'm not sure about and why I withhold judgment. This may sound funny, but I think that in these forums, we could often use fewer, not more, personal views.

Americans are too free that they are unable to get what they need. They can have everything so they do not take what is important only what is desired. The vehicle is their symbol and they uphold this symbol on the alter of cheap foreign goods.

The world doesn't like American foreign policy because after 9/11 sympathy was given and often returned with suspicion, or demand that you were either a supporter or opposition. Iran suspended the daily "Death to America" chats and offered condolences only to be listed as a terrorist state. Iran feared they would be Americas next target to face military force, they probably were, now they rightly feel power and freedom in Americans faults as a war, political and economic machine. A failing America weakens other institutions such as the UN but not wholly, just in principal.

The American strategy of war is at best a classical example. The Nazi blitzkrieg with modern artillery. Even then, during the WWII, French underground resistance was a problem much easier dealt with through the suspension of human rights. Something America only secretly and unfavorably can get away with. American lack of intelligence is a huge problem and the greatest national security threat that is rarely talked about. America acted following 9/11 in a manner obviously suggesting that it didn't really know: they relied on poor information and propaganda. It couldn't have acted in any other way. America blaming itself? No f**king way, not a chance in frosty hell, not even in my wildest dreams! Unspeakable crimes? Not really, stories best not told around the children perhaps but undoubtedly the most representative of our classical, modern and post-modern human history. A history slopping around in blood. Can you really see in America a Stalin, a Hitler, a Lenin, a Mao or even a Pinochet etc? I think not: then there is nothing that should be unspeakable about America; but it does make for a convenient metaphor doesn't it. People say that you see more death on TV than by any other manner; however, the telling of this death has been intrinsically altered. The idea that one lost life is somehow important agonizes and holds appeal in that this is how we see ourselves, rugged individuals fighting for our lives (self-gratification, justification, and rationalization). Meanwhile we counter each other in self-inflated subterfuge as the whole planet goes to shit.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page= ... _ctrl=1223

Perhaps the worst would be not to give credit where it is due. The positive America and the mistaken America can be seen as two very separate topics. Positive America following a certain set of characteristics and mistaken America another. And what is America? Is it the soldier pulling the trigger or the missionary from the Bible Belt? Europe must be wallowing in its obscurity right now because nobody bitches about their foreign policy all the time. I guess not getting results reducing AIDS, poverty and hunger is acceptable where supporting hostile politics is not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_of_ ... _principle

Can the government change the people in ways they are not willing to change? People elect those who will serve their self-interests. Nobody will win saying that they are not going to protect American freedom and safety, or that they will enact legislation which will result in loss of profit for the economy. Unfortunately the way to provide everything is to take from the weak. Bacevich rightly suggests that everything needs reform. Governments reflect the people who reflect what they have been given as children and sold as adults. This advertising is peddled, often surprisingly poorly, by those who want power.

http://www.caregivershome.com/professio ... cfm?UID=29

Actually, Bacevich's view of the world is pretty far to the left, at least with regard to foreign policy and military matters. That's not a criticism; my political philosophy is also rather liberal. The main difference between his views and those you read in The Nation is that Bacevich doesn't mention economic factors like corporate power and the broadening gap between rich & poor.

Bacevich's depiction of our political institutions was depressing, but I couldn't argue with any of it. The bounds of mainstream political discourage don't make room for any policies less aggressive than Bill Clinton's. Even after the 2006 elections, the Democratic-majority Congress let the Iraq War continue.

Bacevich made some fascinating points about the ineptitude of the country's military and intelligence organizations, and how Presidents have as a result disregarded the opinions of the Pentagon and the CIA. It's great that JFK learned from the Bay of Pigs debacle, and chose to ignore the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. However, it was an enormous mistake for the Bush administration to dismiss the generals warning of the immense difficulty of an Iraq War and occupation.

I appreciated the historical arc, going from Forrestal to Nitze to Wolfowitz, explaining the mindset of the so-called Wise Men who have pushed US policy in such a nasty direction. That's a coherent big picture that I hadn't seen before.

Yes, and what really strikes my is how beholden the nation has become in its own hindsight. Never have the people in power become so recitent and self-interested in the same paradigm. Everyone knows what the problem is now that it is too late, and it is not like recent history has shown anything less than a crystal clear warning. Those who say the situation isn't as bad as it seems are the same people who created this mess, had the greatest benefits, and now stand with the most to lose. Bush, Greenspan, and that $700 billion government banker guy, can't apologize because it would make everything they have said and done forefit, it would prove that they are incompetent and would force them to face up to their actions in a way that is much to real for their comfort.

It must be of top importance not to give in to the idea of the exceptional America that is somehow unlike what history has shown us as the political and soical norms for those in power. It is easy to acknowledge the statement that those in power are trapt and aggressive by their own facination with status, without realizing that we are the ones with the power.

When you feel that Bacevich is "left" do you mean that liberals are realistic. I would argue that there is no "left" or right to the American situation as presented by Bacevich, only reality and delusion, trial and error. The domination of the right with fundamentalist Americanism as a key to popular support is mirrored by the lefts natural role in the government structure as opposition. There is nothing inherent about being a liberal that would have prevented Afghanistan and Iraq. That said the role of Bush & Co. is insidious, these are the ones who absolutly must not be seen as exceptional!

The greatest emotional contract I feel towards Obama is the real chance that he will take meaningful steps to bring those responsible for true evil, toture and terrorism to justice (Bush, Dick, Rummy). Even though he has not promised as much I feel that he is least likely to grant an undue executive pardon as has been the norm. Bush may yet try to pardon himself. Bacevich bring this point up where those with responsibility are seen as immune to responsibility to their actions. This is a must change! It is as though the system is structure so promotion is given until the person reaches a level where they are incompetent and can progress no further. So you have a system full of progressive incompetents.

Grim wrote:Bush may yet try to pardon himself. Bacevich bring this point up where those with responsibility are seen as immune to responsibility to their actions. This is a must change! It is as though the system is structure so promotion is given until the person reaches a level where they are incompetent and can progress no further. So you have a system full of progressive incompetents.

wow. that's something I had not considered, but of course should have. Bush pardoning everyone involved. Of course he will. He basically did it for Libby. We'll never get to the bottom of what really happened.

funny that you should do that.

You don't really mention her writings in your post, but if you look at all the recent corporate bailouts, it's looking like 'Atlas Shrugged' to me.

I'm not blaming this all on Bush, but (excluding the last 6 months), the pattern has been there particularly in the last 10 years. The last couple of months have been a hockey stick that is absolutely unbelievable. I'm sure that Ayn is spinning in her grave.