TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 9:38 AM
January 08, 2009 | 9:22 AM
January 08, 2009 | 9:00 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 07, 2009 | 12:40 PM
January 04, 2009 | 8:54 PM
January 01, 2009 | 8:57 PM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

January 07, 2009 | 5:09 PM
January 07, 2009 | 3:00 PM
January 07, 2009 | 1:51 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
01.10.2008
Andrew J. Bacevich on How America Will Change

In an effort to start making sense of what is an indisputably confusing situation, we asked some of the most thoughtful people we know the question: How will America change as a result of the economic downturn? Here's Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor at Boston University and the author of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism.

We can now finally chuck overboard all of the bloated and self-congratulatory language of the post-Cold War era: the claims made of a Sole Superpower serving as the Indispensable Nation during a Unipolar Moment at the End of History. Each and every one of these notions was pernicious from the moment it was uttered. Events have now decisively demonstrated each to be absurdly false.

When it comes to statecraft, the chief lessons of the Bush era are these: Arrogance and hubris have revealed the very real limits of American global leadership; recklessness and ineptitude have revealed the limits of American military power; a foolish and self-indulgent unwillingness to live within our means has now made clear the limits--and the fragility--of American prosperity. We may choose to ignore these lessons--neoconservatives will insist upon it--but the consequences of doing so will be severe.

A season of reckoning is upon us. To say that is not to imply that the United States is now condemned to an irreversible downward spiral. It's not. It is, however, time for us to clean up our act and to put our own house in order. When it comes to foreign policy, that means restoring a balance between our commitments and the means that we have at hand to meet those commitments.

And that means, above all, revisiting and revising the deeply defective notion of open-ended "global war"--World War IV!--as the proper response to the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism. We need a new framework for national security strategy, one that junks the global war on terror in favor of an alternative that is affordable, sustainable, and relevant to the variety of challenges that we face. Realism and modesty must become our watchwords.

One might think that a presidential campaign would provide the occasion to debate strategic alternatives. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence that the current campaign is going to produce such a result. In that regard, the final lesson of the Bush era has been to demonstrate just how vapid and unimaginative our politics have become.

--Andrew J. Bacevich

Posted: Wednesday, October 01, 2008 10:30 PM with 17 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

timteeter said:

"And that means, above all, revisiting and revising the deeply defective notion of open-ended "global war"--World War IV!--as the proper response to the threat posed by violent Islamic radicalism . . .

One might think that a presidential campaign would provide the occasion to debate strategic alternatives. Unfortunately, there is precious little evidence that the current campaign is going to produce such a result."

I agree.  However, it was a foregone conclusion that, in the current political climate, no candidate was going to say the obvious, even admitted now by the Bush administration, that the "war" on terror needs to give way to something more like a long-term multinational police operation.  Anyone who points this out will suffer the fate of John Kerry.  We can only hope that a President Obama will be able to articulate how we should recalibrate our efforts.

October 1, 2008 10:46 PM

MichLib said:

Thoughtful article, but I think you give too much credit to Bush. And I take exception to some of the observations.

"We can now finally chuck overboard all of the bloated and self-congratulatory language of the post-Cold War era: the claims made of a Sole Superpower serving as the Indispensable Nation during a Unipolar Moment at the End of History. Each and every one of these notions was pernicious from the moment it was uttered. Events have now decisively demonstrated each to be absurdly false."

This attitude of national pride and even bravado was not only common after the Cold-War but throughout history at times more than others. Ever since Manifest Destiny this has been a typical American attitude. It's not even always a bad thing such as it has been with Bush - it's motivated Americans to consistently be innovators, from being the first to fly and the first to fly to the moon, to developing the worlds largest economy. America has usually been seen as the "shining city on a hill" that those who don't come here to live, wish to be like Americans - for example, my cousins in Eastern Europe *insisted* on "authentic" "Made in the USA" Levi jeans for Christmas in the mid-1990s. The US has protected Europe nobly especially during the World Wars and has consistently been a leader in world aide projects and the like.

To dismiss all that as "absurdly false" is pretty ignorant of real history. And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's all been good. Except it's actually more the fact that Bush's Administration (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, usual suspects) are more consumed by greed than likely any previous administration. I won't go through the laundry list of examples for this but the insane amount of Halliburton contracts in Iraq is one that speaks for itself. But why else would that clique construct a worldview (wholly different from the description of America's history I wrote of above) that centers around a perpetual "war on terror" that will traverse the entire globe and pit 'us vs them' and on and on? It's all the power of money. It smells of Orwellianism. The whole thing almost makes me believe Bush is more innocent than anyone thinks - that he truly buys into all the great stuff in history and is just too dense to realize that the ones around him are taking advantage of him. Almost...

October 2, 2008 12:09 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Wow. So now we're turning against liberal internationalism as well? Let's throw the baby out with the bathwater!

Paging Marty Peretz. Someone let the Henry Wallace brigades in while you were on vacation....

October 2, 2008 12:43 AM

ironyroad said:

Tep, it's not as bad as you think.  Bacevich says:

"When it comes to foreign policy, that means restoring a balance between our commitments and the means that we have at hand to meet those commitments."

A reasonable judgment -- about which one can also disagree -- but not an abandoning of liberal internationalism.  Certainly, though, a refusal to continue on with a foreign policy that consists of unproductive bluster and promises made on the spur of the moment that cannot be kept.

October 2, 2008 1:27 AM

teplukhin2you said:

That quote isn't evidence of good judgment, it's banality pretending to be wise. I bet Bacevich is for motherhood too. "Vapid and unimaginative", indeed.

October 2, 2008 1:59 AM

ironyroad said:

"banality pretending to be wise."

In what way?

October 2, 2008 2:18 AM

luispc said:

Excellent post, Mr. Bacevish.

October 2, 2008 2:31 AM

Robert Powell said:

I'm not aware of any "promises made on the spur of the moment that cannot be kept" issued by the US government. It seems to me that liberal internationalism is dead as the Dodo. We seem hell-bent on "coming home" asap and pulling up the welcome mat behind us.

Ironyroad, there's a response to your last post on "They Both Lost" at The Stump. You have to click on the "next page" arrow at the bottom of the front page.

October 2, 2008 3:01 AM

ChanRobt said:

In Afghanistan, the one theater that everyone purportedly agrees the West must take a stand against Jihad, the United States is the only nation committed there with all its will and fully effective force.

The European nations, especially Germany, pick and choose which battles there they will fight and which they will not.

You can argue whether or not we are the Indispensable Nation.  But there is no other even close to demonstrating either the will or the capacity to defend the West in multiple theaters around the globe.

Woe on the world if an when China or Russia or both in tandem ever become the dominant power(s).

October 2, 2008 3:40 AM

mjhollerich said:

Bacevich has been arguing for several years now, in books and articles, that we've over-reached in our foreign policy.  The over-reaching led to the misuse of the military for non-defensive purposes, a mistake that Bush's pre-emption doctrine took to new levels.  The over-reaching was in the service both of a mistaken idealism (Wilson's legacy) and of American capitalism's need to secure markets, because a decaying democracy had little left but an ever-increasing standard of living on which to peg its purpose.

You can criticize Bacevich for neo-isolationism, neo-Marxism, and nostalgic false memories of A Better Time in American Life (and he has been accused of all of these -- I think only the last one may have any merit).  But on the core question of the use and misuse of our military, I think he's dead on and should be taken very seriously.  This, he argues, is an almost inevitable legacy of the move to an all-volunteer force.  A citizen army, founded on a draft, provided the essential democratic check against foreign policy over-spending.

Apologies to the author (full disclosure: whom I know) if he's been misrepresented here.  

October 2, 2008 6:42 AM

butchie b said:

I respect Bacevich greatly, but it is wholly uncler to me that we have overreached in our foreign policy.

I understand the desire to leave Iraq.  Let's say President Obama does so by mid-2010.  Then what?  More troops to Afghanistan, one supposes.  After that?  Leaving Korea?  Germany?  Japan?  Reducing the number of carrier battle groups from 12 to 7 or so?  Reducing the Army even more?

We are the sole superpower, like it or not.  Now, we can stop using the term if you want, but the fact remains (see carrier battle groups above).

In the meantime, there remain nation-states and non-state actors that wish to kill us.  What would President Obama say/do about that?  I've heard precious little in the campaign.

If the intell is good enough, would he engage in a pre-emptive strike?  On what does that depend?

Bacevich wants to harmonize means and ends.  Great.  What ends does he believe our means justifies post-Iraq?

October 2, 2008 1:24 PM

erinfrench said:

"In Afghanistan, the one theater that everyone purportedly agrees the West must take a stand against Jihad, the United States is the only nation committed there with all its will and fully effective force."

Come on, we have committed only a fraction of our troops and money to Afghanistan as compared to Iraq. We have always maintained just enough troops so we don't lose there. I'm not saying sending as many troops as Iraq is the solution, but it has not  been a priority for this administration.

"I respect Bacevich greatly, but it is wholly uncler to me that we have overreached in our foreign policy."

Not winning in Afghanistan or getting Osama before invading Iraq - a country that posed little threat to us - seems like overreach to me.

"I understand the desire to leave Iraq.  Let's say President Obama does so by mid-2010.  Then what?  More troops to Afghanistan, one supposes.  After that?  Leaving Korea?  Germany?  Japan?"

We have already done all these things to commit more troops to Iraq. We are down to one combat brigade in Korea compared to the division we had there. We have pulled a lot of our units out of Germany as well. You can say they were pulled out because they were more easily deployable from the US but the fact is it wouldn't have happened without the Iraq war.

As for our 12 carrier battle groups we are soon going to be down to 11 and I recently read the Chief of Naval Operations wants permission from Congress to reduce it down to 10 for a period of 33 months while the Enterprise is retired and the Ford comes online.

When you fight 2 wars with a volunteer army and without a tax hike then rundown your economy you tend to limit your foreign policy options. If you don't believe me, then look at Iran. Why isn't the Bush administration pre-emptively striking there when it's the clearest WMD threat of all.

October 2, 2008 3:50 PM

butchie b said:

Erin, your comments reflect what you believe to be bad policy, not foreign policy overreach.  Overreach would mean that we could not put enough troops in Afghanistan to achieve our objectives.  That's not your argument.  Rather, you say only that we haven't.  Not winning is also bad policy, but we didn't not get Osama because we were overreaching.

You say generally that we've pulled our units out of Germany - which ones and how many?  We drew down in Korea before this war started.

As for CVGs, we're not drawing down, but there is apparently a time lag between carriers.  Don't see the overreach there, either.

Your last paragraph is particularly incoherent.  First, the fact that we have not struck Iran may be due to the Bushies thinking that it's not a good idea.  Even if they don't think that, our Air Force and Navy are not overstretched in any way, and could strike Iran today if ordered to do so.

Again, where and in what ways are our foreign policy options limited by the Iraq War any more now than they were in 2002?

October 2, 2008 4:34 PM

ChanRobt said:

I don't believe a strike against Iran would achieve the objective of stopping their nuclear ambitions from coming to fruition unless we are also willing to occupy the country and change the regime.

Since Europe has hardly any military to speak of, we would be on our own once again.  With the danger that Russia would see it in their interest to get involved.

We ought to do everything necessary to keep Iran from getting nukes.  but, it's very unlikely we have the will.

October 2, 2008 5:37 PM

Robert Powell said:

Bacevich has an excellent article in the current Atlantic (available at theatlantic.com without having to be a subscriber).  Highly recommended.

October 3, 2008 7:08 AM

The Plank said:

In an effort to start making sense of what is an indisputably confusing situation, we asked some of the

October 5, 2008 5:41 PM

The Plank said:

In an effort to start making sense of what is an indisputably confusing situation, we asked some of the

October 13, 2008 12:11 AM