Introduction: War Without Exits
Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 2:33 am
After reading the introduction, I agreed with some of Bacevich's claims but disagreed with others. The policies of the Bush administration, especially the Iraq War, have been utter disasters. However, Bacevich overstates the extent to which the rest of the country supports those policies and has a questionable view of why the nation acts the way it does.
The US is much more militaristic than I'd like. Even under Clinton, the military was too large and too active. A majority of the country supported the first Gulf War under Bush Sr. and (initially) the current Iraq War under W. Still, the current Iraq War would never have started had the US President been a Democrat or a more sane Republican.
The US, as the most powerful country in the post-war world, attempted to shape world events to serve its own interest, at least as perceived by the forces that control society. (Strangely, Bacevich doesn't mention the influence of corporations, despite the vast influence they exert on government decisions.) However, all nations do what they can to control other nations; the US differs from other countries mainly in that it has more power than everyone else.
Bacevich makes a few statements that really don't apply to the Clinton administration. The Clinton security team recognized the seriousness of the terrorism threat, contradicting Bacevich's depiction of a "political elite preoccupied with the governance of empire." Clinton, with great effort, balanced the budget, contradicting the claim that "Successive administrations, abetted by Congress, have deepened a looming crisis of debt and dependency through unbridled spending." Many of the criticisms apply to Republicans only, but Bacevich doesn't make that distinction.
I'm not sure what Bacevich means by freedom; maybe that will become more clear further in the book. The US policies he mentioned are aimed towards making the economy richer and increasing America's geopolitical power. Neither of those goals can be equated with the freedom of US citizens. There's no obvious connection between individual freedom, as I define it, and America's imperialistic foreign policy.
Anyway, that's enough for now.
The US is much more militaristic than I'd like. Even under Clinton, the military was too large and too active. A majority of the country supported the first Gulf War under Bush Sr. and (initially) the current Iraq War under W. Still, the current Iraq War would never have started had the US President been a Democrat or a more sane Republican.
The US, as the most powerful country in the post-war world, attempted to shape world events to serve its own interest, at least as perceived by the forces that control society. (Strangely, Bacevich doesn't mention the influence of corporations, despite the vast influence they exert on government decisions.) However, all nations do what they can to control other nations; the US differs from other countries mainly in that it has more power than everyone else.
Bacevich makes a few statements that really don't apply to the Clinton administration. The Clinton security team recognized the seriousness of the terrorism threat, contradicting Bacevich's depiction of a "political elite preoccupied with the governance of empire." Clinton, with great effort, balanced the budget, contradicting the claim that "Successive administrations, abetted by Congress, have deepened a looming crisis of debt and dependency through unbridled spending." Many of the criticisms apply to Republicans only, but Bacevich doesn't make that distinction.
I'm not sure what Bacevich means by freedom; maybe that will become more clear further in the book. The US policies he mentioned are aimed towards making the economy richer and increasing America's geopolitical power. Neither of those goals can be equated with the freedom of US citizens. There's no obvious connection between individual freedom, as I define it, and America's imperialistic foreign policy.
Anyway, that's enough for now.