Tuesday, April 17, 2012
UMW HIST300F: The New American Militarism
What does Bacevich say are the root causes of this new wave of American militarism and what are its manifestations? Thinking about some of our earlier discussions, how does this new American militarism differ from the militarism we saw in the 1890s that ultimately helped lead the U.S. into the war of 1898?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When reading Bacevich the introduction says a lot about the new wave of American militarism. On the first page he states how the United States military had proved they were “the strongest the world has ever known” after operation Iraqi Freedom. With starting with such a strong statement shows how the military is improving and constantly progressing still. One of the causes he addresses is how the government impacts the military and that people think the resolution to fixing military policies is just by voting whoever out of office, if one does not like the way that the representative is going to change something. The new wave of American militarism is growing with the new ways that people are living in America, and keeping up with the competition that America faces with other countries. American militarism also has changed because of the dependence that Americans have on the military and the trust that they have in them for their safety. Another cause of the new American militarism is on the first page of chapter six he states that President George W. Bush states, “the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act” (Page 147). With a leader pushing that action is the way to solve things means that the military is going to be involved in many different places to prevent the action from coming to the United States. This new act of militarism is different than in 1890’s because instead of trying to stay out of things the military is becoming proactive and taking the first step and starting the “action”.
ReplyDeleteBacevich believes that the roots of our new American militarism are driven under the framework that at all times there is an "emergency" without any foreseeable end. During WWII it grew in preparation against Germany and the Japanese, but continued to grow even bigger afterwards. The Cold War gave an "emergency" without any foreseeable end. Our military and elected leaders believed in order to survive as a nation, we need a military that far exceeds the capabilities of any other nation or conglomerate of nations. Once the Cold War ended, a system had become so engrained in American bureaucracy that empowered Generals/Admirals, politicians, and corporations-- all of whom fed the American public ideas that a forever growing military can combat forever growing threats. Brecavich describes our preparation for war during peacetime, coupled with our American exceptional, as leading to wars.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the 19th Century, our military was just coming into a stand alone force. Never before in history did we have a standing military that consumed massive amounts of our countries wealth. The military was used as an instrument of the people, more so than the government. Progressives saw savaged and destitute people in Cuba and the Philippines that needed help. Our military was used to liberate. But, it did quickly become a racist occupation that in many cases disenfranchised the local populace, but nonetheless it was never a massive economic arm fulled by members of the military calling for war.
One of the root causes for the new wave of American militarism that Bacevich mentions was the Iraqi invasion into Kuwait and the American military response of Operation Desert Storm. The success of Operation Desert Storm went along way to changing the image of the US military post-Vietnam. According to Bacevich, “The performance of U.S. forces during the course of the brief campaign dazzled the American people and the world at large and overturned a historical judgment that had lingered ever since the defeat in Southeast Asia.” (35) Bachevich further goes on to state that victory in Kuwait was viewed by some Vietnam veterans as means of redemption. Post-Vietnam the U.S. military was highly scrutinized, Operation Desert Storm was able to begin to restore the reputation of the U.S. military as a forced to be reckoned with.
ReplyDeleteThis new American militarism is different from the militarism of the 1890’s, in large part because of the evolving technology. With the change in technology war had become more of something fought on a global scale then confined to a country. In 1898 when the United States went into Cuba and the Philippines, wars that were fought in those countries were kept to those countries. When war is fought today it is fought on a more global scale. Yet another difference is who the military are fighting. In 1898, the United States were fighting specific groups whether they be the Spanish or the Filipino rebels. The military today is fighting a global war on terrorism. Terrorism is a very broad term, then could refer to people all over the world.
The new American militarism in the United States, as Bacevich explains, is aroused by the sense after WWII that there is always a threat to be dealt with in the world. He talks about how the Cold war presented a danger to Americans for almost half a century, and Bacevich argues that with these threats the people want to feel protected. The American military has been willing provide that protection since its creation. The common idea of the time was that in order to be safe we did not need just any military, we needed a military that far exceeds the capabilities of any other power. It stands to reason that when a nation has a military so large often times they feel obligated to use that force.
ReplyDeleteHowever, militarism is different in the Gulf Wars than it was in the 1890s. By the time of the conflicts in Iraq, the world had become far more entangled diplomatically than it was in the 1890s. Post WWI, war is fought on a global scale and is rarely restricted to one country's borders. On the other hand, one of the most prevalent consistencies in all American military conflicts is the concept of race dynamics. Be it racism toward comrades or racism toward the local populations, with the increase emphasize on masculinity and manhood, a demeanor a hate is often adopted by military forces in a region toward a specific group of people.
Bacevich makes good assertions in the reading about how the mental disposition of the nation changed concerning military following World War II. The mindset shifted from a responsive and protective type of attitude to more or a vigilante and superhero type of mentality. For example, the mindset progressed to the extent where the United States understood that there will always be some sort of opposition to the nation or the nations allies therefore military personnel and potential military force is always necessary. In addition, it is important to note that the United States seems to adopted the policing role of the world to the point where the nation's military and resources far exceed that of nearly every other opposing country. Militarism since the 1890s had evolved in a decade in regards to the diplomacy aspect. I enjoyed Bacevich's writing and much of that stems from the subject content.
ReplyDeleteBacevich makes it clear in his introduction, that American militarism is deeply rooted in America's past history. The idea of new militarism is sparked by a few concepts/events after WWII. One example is the relationship between Christianity and war which he describes as a "tangled one." (124) The United States has a large majority of Christians and has had them well before 1776. The two world wars and then others which had been advanced with nuclear weapons had "served to revive Christian pacifism" (124) bringing forth reinforcing values of militarism. Nixon's presidency bought forth weekly religious services in the White House, but at the same time new campaigns for homosexual rights, legalization of abortions etc. testified as "a nation turning away from God." (126) "...as evangelicals saw it, military weakness and anti-militarism itself were also symptomatic of the nations's largest moral affliction." (128) Now the United States had to have a large(er) and more powerful army than before to ensure that as a nation and a military that they were not weak.
ReplyDeleteIn comparison to the 1890s, the military has grown in force. The Air Force was established in 1947 as its own military branch, making it stronger, and the Marines had become larger and more involved in wartime efforts than they had before. Instead of watching things as they happened, the US military is now more prone to be in the action while it is happening. Attempts to prevent further disaster among our soils have been heightened, and hard actions against it have been applied.
As the others have stated, the roots of militarism according to Bacevich began with operation Iraqi Freedom and Desert Storm. In both cases, the United States easily beat and occupied a "sovereign" nation with armed forces. It is the insurgencies that the United States has never been to good at delivering a defeat. The militarism began, because the United States people began to see the military as a necessity to defend against all kinds of onslaughts to Democracy. This is different from the 1890's, because there was perceived end or goal, which was making the Philippines and other countries independent and civilized. These are still the goals, but there are plenty of dictators across the world that we have not attacked. We have not intervened or attacked, because they didn't have anything that we wanted: oil, rubber, etc.
ReplyDeleteOne manifestation that Bacevich did not touch on enough was the fact that people see the military as a career. In my high school, you either went to college, military academy, or into the military. Two out of the three options dealt with the military. Many members of the middle and lower classes perceive the military as a place for career advancement and as a place to move up in the world. The fact that many people perceive the military as a career rather than a short-term service is a manifestation of modern militarism.
The root of this new wave of American militarism, according to Bacevich, comes from the tragedy of 9/11. After 9 /11the Bush administration takes an aggressive military approach. “They have concluded that force makes your diplomacy more effective going forward dealing with other problems” (19). 9/11 forced the US under Bush on the offensive but on a global scale. The way Bush forms this new militarism is certainly not new the same thing happened after WWII with the Cold War. As many have said before me, the Cold War was an open-ended conflict that allowed the US to have a global military force to protect itself indefinitely, which was scaled back after the failure of Vietnam. When comparing today’s militarism vs that of the 1890s much can be seen. I think that there are actually quite a lot of similarities. I think that a comparison to the fear of the time and with the frontier closing in the 1890s and looking abroad for that ‘frontier’ with today. The US has set up a military empire to protect itself and its markets born out of fear of another 9/11.
ReplyDeleteA key component to the new American militarism is the constant threat perceived by the U.S. Because of the United States is constantly threatened by a plethora of actors- especially non-state ones after 9/11- there is a necessity to build the strongest, largest military force in the world to protect the country. Launching the global War on Terror seems to be an opportunity that has been long awaited, and President George Bush was only lucky enough to be the head of state to undertake it. The Wilsonian idealists that Bacevich describes want to spread democracy, freedom, and other cherished American values around the world. If the world is now at constant risk, what better time to flex our massive militaristic muscles and send our troops into the nooks and crannies of the Middle East to root out terrorism? I think a difference in American militarism since the late 19th century is that qualms of why the U.S. undertakes its operations abroad are more easily justified away with the idea that the world is constantly threatened and therefore requires the American police force present at all times, in all corners of the world.
ReplyDeleteBacevich states that the new wave of American militarism has its roots in the revival of Wilsonian ambitions, concepts, and certainty. The belief among modern Americans that the American principles are the "principles of mankind" (11) is a belief that was first espoused by Woodrow Wilson. Bacevich also says that the realities of the Cold War helped bring about the revival of Wilsonian concepts as America began to take on the belief that it is the protector of the free world. He also says that September 11 helped contribute to this new militarism by promoting a revival of the conviction "that destiny summons the United States, the one true universal nation, to raise up a universal civilization based on American norms" (13).
ReplyDeleteBacevich states that the manifestations of this new militarism are an increased propensity to use force in that the United States has begun using military force over all other choices when it comes to diplomatic relations. He also says that the increase in the size of the US armed forces shows a second manifestation of this new militarism. The third manifestation according to Bacevich is a new aesthetic of war, in that the old World War I and II images of war have been thrown out with the advent of new war making technology and has " knocked away much of the accumulated blood-rust sullying war's reputation" (22). This means that new technology has made war more impersonal and made the age of mass armies and mechanized warfare obsolete allowing Americans to view war with an almost "boyish" enthusiasm.
The main differences between the new militarism and the militarism of the 1890s is that in the 1890s Americans, no matter how much they wanted war, made it appear to be the last resort choice. In the present, it is hardly ever made to appear to be the last resort but is portrayed as more of a preemptive strike. Bacevich also raises a point that I believe further shows the difference in the new militarism versus the old in that during the 1890s there was some resistance to militarism, but in the modern era people of all political spectrum's embrace militarism and the US militaristic ideals of the American Nation's principles being the best for the entire world.
Bacevich points to several causes for a new wave of American militarism. One of the major points he discusses is the Vietnam War and the fallout from it: the government’s and officer’s efforts to reform the military and military policies/doctrine after the failure of the Vietnam War. This reform and the new ideas coupled with it (Brodie, Wohlstetter, etc.) led to many different changes in the way the military operated and how we approached external “threats.” America’s involvement in global politics after World War II also played a significant role, as America was very much put into the international spotlight at the end of the War. More recent events, namely America’s growing dependence on foreign oil and particularly the relative success of Operation Desert Storm. Bacevich does talk about the role technological advancements played in the rise of new militarism, but I don’t think he put enough emphasis on it or gave it enough agency. The new militarism is manifested in several different ways: the large scope of our current military establishment, the normalization of war, a “new aesthetic of war” involving the combination of art and war, and the relatively high status of our soldiers and military institutions.
ReplyDeleteThis new militarism differs from the militarism we saw before because now America isn’t waiting for provocation like the explosion of the Maine or the attack on Pearl Harbor—now America takes the first step, practicing “preventive war” (war that prevents war? Seems contradictory to me…). This new age of militarism seems to also be backed by a lot more bureaucracy and have a lot more at stake: it now seems that the fate of America and democracy (sometimes exaggerated to the fate of the world) depends on the wars we wage.
I agree with everybody above; Bacevich traces the roots of the new American militarism to Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom/War on Terror/whatever you would like to call it now. After the humiliation of Vietnam, the military exists now to protect the world--and mainly American interests--from an eternal but undefined threat. I like what James says about the American military adopting a vigilante attitude rather than that of the father figure protecting its flock. Indeed, the United States seems to take pride in its ability to venture out and fight the forces of evil, yet "evil" does not always have a clear definition. It is almost as if in an attempt to be offensive, the US is actually playing on the defensive by curling inward but with her spikes pointed out. Because of military failures such as Vietnam, the military has sought to redeem itself not only in the eyes of the American public, but also in the eyes of other nations. Display force and supposedly deep, philosophical ambitions in order to help save the world and nobody will be able to hurt and question the military's motives again.
ReplyDeleteAlthough much time has passed since 1898 and as Bacevich so eloquently states, American militarism has changed. Yet I feel as if many of the aims are still the same, just portrayed from a different angle. Soldiers continue to fight for idealistic values such as honor and out of patriotic pride. But today, politics have become more intertwined into the concerns of the military. When my dad came back from his second tour in Iraq, he told my family that he was shocked at how business-like the battlefields actually were. Yes, you have your men at the front lines, shooting at the enemy. But the weapons, the technology, the contractors...at the root of all of the exchanges is money. My dad returned disillusioned because as a young man in his 20s, he wanted to go on an adventure and "shoot the bad guys" and "be a man". After Iraq, he discovered that the effects of corruption at the top, among the generals and the civilian contractors and even between "enemy" businessmen, had only a disastrous effect on the soldiers on the ground.
Bagevich's main argument throughout his book is refining the military after the fallout in Vietnam, and it especially began during Desert Storm. I basically agree with what everyone commented regarding the differences between the military during the 1890s and the new militarism. Throughout the book, I got the sense that as the years progressed, the United States officials began to use the militia to spread democracy across the globe. Instead of using brute force, use pacifist tactics to portend a better future for the US military and other countries. After reading the required pages, I noticed that there has been some modifications in regards to the US militia since the 1890s. For instance, the evolution of technology, and to add another vital example, people across the globe don't view war differently as people did during the late 19th century. A student above posted a good comment that stated that the United States today are not waiting for provocation, but instead they attempt to prevent war. Since the years have progressed, the United States learned their lessons in Vietnam to not go into a country infested with corruption and use brute force to enforce democracy, but now, they are attempting to use pacifist tactics to spread democracy.
ReplyDeleteBacevich in his introduction asserts that, "present-day American militarism has deep roots in the American past. " Bacevich in his books focuses on the changes in American mindset after WWII. Bacevich talks that during WWI and WWII we went to war to protect ourselves from grave threats. However after WWII and since then we have gone to war because we see ourselves as the police of the globe in which we should assert our values everywhere and preemptively stop those who we perceive to be evil. Bacevich believes that this new wave American militarism stems originally from the first invasion of Iraq in 1991 and then is strengthened after 9/11. That the new mindset in America is the military we possess is the best ever and we should utilize it by going to it first as a solution to our problems. This is evident in Bush's presidency after 9/11, by initiating this global war on terror he instills Wilsonian principles that we are the defenders of mankind and its our duty to spread these principles.
ReplyDeleteThe big change from the 1890s is how technology has allowed us to propel ourselves over all others which has made us supremely confident in our abilities to wage war. It has allowed for a change in where and why we go to war and the downfall that it has caused is that now it gives us little need for us to justify why we go to war.
Bacevich found a lot of reasons for this new militarism. The first one was 9/11, the USA for the first time was attacked on its territory and showed weakness. Consequently, the US started to worry about its image on the international stage: it increased the amount of weapons and fortify its organization in order to regain its leading position in the world. Another reason must be added to that; the US declared that it wanted to rid the world of evil (p.2). That is why the Americans proclaimed themselves as the ‘international police’. They can intervene in any country in order to help the citizens and to restore democracy. But this international position of leader needs to be protected in order to be unchallenged, that is the reason why Bacevich declares on page 18 that a better military leads toward a better supremacy. The last root of this new militarism is the symbolic value of the American force, they are strong, no one is going to challenge them, and the US will keep its place as number one.
ReplyDeleteAll these factors led the US toward a military expansion: more weapons, more soldiers, better protections and better plans. The US spent a lot of money in researches in order to improve its arms.
It led to more advanced and more efficient weapons than in the 1890s militarism, consequently their interventions were more devastating. Moreover, the reasons that used to push the Americans toward war were not the same. Before they used to fight to get colonies and to expand their territories; now it’s more about ideologies and resources (which I have to confess were also important in the past). Their goal is to have a new world organized according to the American way of life, in every country where the US intervenes, it establishes a pro-American regime.
Bacevich describes the rise of a New American Militarism to be rooted within the U.S. failure in Vietnam and the subsequent rise of neo-conservatives. In an attempt to restore honor and pride to America's humiliating expulsion from Vietnam, neo-cons turned to the oil rich Arab world, where, in theory, the U.S. would be able to "tame the Arab street ... with raw power and victory".
ReplyDeleteWhat I essentially see as Bacevich's main argument is the modern disconnect between American society and our Armed Forces.
For instance, during the U.S. involvement in Cuba and the Philippines Americans were heavily invested with the outcome of foreign U.S. affairs (and at many times were highly critical if not all out opposed). With the end of the "Vietnam Syndrome", so elegantly put by Bush Sr. after his crushing defeat over Saddam's army, Americans have developed complacency for many things, one of the most important being an overall neglect and ignorance of U.S. foreign involvement.
It's interesting how Americans can get all worked up about having to compromise on a broken health care system, or throw a fit when they have to wait in line for ANY of our many commodities, yet ten years of war and roughly 50,000 U.S. casualties gets a lot of respect and encouragement. Oh yeah, Americans will tie yellow ribbons around the old oak tree and put a godless amount of "Patriotic" stickers on their car, but when it actually comes down to giving a shit about the real situation of U.S. Armed Forces and their well being, these same people opt to stick their heads in the sand. We Americans are at a time in our history when we need to start making a lot of sacrifices, but as far as I’m concerned the only thing most Americans are willing to sacrifice is the lives of their soldiers.
As many others and Bacevich have stated the roots of the new militarism trace back to Desert Storm and operation Iraqi Freedom. It seems that since these and the war on terror really began our military has taken a more aggressive approach. Looking back throughout history since WWII Backavich points out there is an ongoing threat therefore creating a need for a more constant form of protection from the military.
ReplyDeleteComparing the military from the 1890's to today almost feels like comparing apples to oranges. One difference between the two eras is the use of technology. In todays world newer and more advance technology tools come out everyday. As we have previously discussed our Military has always been one to not only expeirment with different polices and social norms but also new sources of technology. Technological advances have not only changed the Military's abilities but have also changed the way that the countries are able to fight a war. Another comparison that was brought up was seeing the Military not just as a temporary job but as a long term career. I feel like in todays culture joining the military is seen as a smart and respected career choice, it is more of a long term thing compared to the 1890's when a soldier would go to war and come home and work odd jobs. Though those are just two major difference they are big ones and are key components when looking at todays new militarism.
In Bacevich's account of U.S. military history, Wilsonian ideology is manifest throughout the entirety of this narrative. Wilson's goal was to "'end all wars' by eliminating the conditions that produced them" (10). Of course, the conditions that U.S. presidents typically understand as conducive to human suffering are non-capitalist socialist regimes. Free enterprise and liberal democracy were policies endorsed not only by the U.S., but by God, and the language of this is quite clear. It's ironic how socialist regimes are condemned when they act as agents of social progress, which provided justification for the cruel and gruesome acts that occurred under these authoritarian regimes, but virtually everyone ignores the U.S. as acting upon a similar agent (this is not to compare the atrocities that occur under each system, just the justifications for them).
ReplyDeleteI think Bacevich rightly points out the separation between citizenship and military service and how this begins to create the military industrial complex. Not only was there a class bias within the military, but after Vietname, military officials believed that it was policy makers, most of whom had no military experience, were the reason the war effort failed. This is the beginning of the professionalization of the military and the idea that U.S. civilians could intrude where on matters in which they did not belong.
Bacevich feels that the roots of this form of American militarism are in past events as well as the idea that there is an emergency somewhere on earth. And I think a lot of this comes from the idea that America sees itself as the policemen of the world so whenecer there is a problem America always needs to get involved for better or worse. with America having the technology that we have now as well as our military presence all over the world it makes it very easy for us to get involved with any country without waiting for problems to arise.
ReplyDeleteThe New American Militarism focuses on the ways Americans have become consumed with the US military, and its global military supremacy. American's mentality towards military intervention globally prior to WWII was more isolation orientated. After WWII, America turned into a crusader like state thats mission was to spread the American way of life world-wide. Bacevich believes this mentality invites endless war and the union between US policy and militarization. American militarism emerged as a reaction to the Vietnam War and has evolved into a new immense problem since the Gulf War. Former President Bush stated: "the only path to safety is the path of action." His words illustrate the American mentality towards military intervention globally and the US's role as a global military leader.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bacevich argues that the unity of American militarization and US policy will eventually lead to the failure of American democracy. It seems that Bacevich argues that America needs to end its militarism obsession to progress into the future.