Andrew J. Bacevich, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism ( New York: Metropolitan Books, ), pp., $ Andrew Bacevich’s latest . “Andrew Bacevich speaks truth to power, no matter who’s in power, which may be why those of both the left and right listen to him.”—Bill Moyers An immediat. With The Limits of Power, Andrew J. Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University and retired U.S. Army colonel, continues his.
|Published (Last):||4 May 2005|
|PDF File Size:||8.83 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||20.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
You turn to Democracy Now! Maybe you come for our daily headlines. Maybe you come for in-depth stories that expose government and corporate abuses of power.
You know that you can count on Democracy Now! But did you know we produce our daily news hour at a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation, all without ads, government funding or corporate underwriting? This is only possible with your support. Right now every donation to Democracy Now! Please do your part. It takes just a couple of minutes to make sure that Democracy Now! Thank you so much. Maybe you come for our daily headlines, or for in-depth stories that expose government and corporate abuses of power.
We produce our daily news hour bacevicu a fraction of the budget of a commercial news operation, all without ads, government funding or corporate underwriting? We rely on contributions kf you, our viewers and listeners to do our work.
If you visit us daily or weekly or even just once a month, now is a great time to make your monthly contribution. Fo Bacevich is a conservative historian who spent twenty-three years serving in the US Army. He also lost his son in Iraq last year.
In a new book titled The Limits of Power: The End of American ExceptionalismBacevich argues that although many in this country are paying a heavy price for US domestic and foreign policy decisions, millions of Americans simply continue to shop, spend and satisfy their appetite for cheap oil, credit and the promise of freedom at home.
Non-commercial news needs your support. Please do your part today. The Limits of Power: This is viewer supported news.
Related Topics Guests Transcript. He is professor of history and international relations at Boston University and writes for a wide spectrum of publications including The NationForeign Affairsthe Los Angeles Timesand The American Conservative.
His latest book is called The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. Transcript This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
Our next guest is Andrew Bacevich. He spent twenty-three years serving in the US Army.
Happy New Year!
He also lost his son in Iraq. Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time.
Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their limitw. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. We know the answer: Bush and Karl Rove — namely, wealthy individuals and institutions. He joins me here in the firehouse studio. Welcome to Democracy Now! Thank you very much for having me.
This is not theoretical for you. But the content, the critique, is unrelated to that tragedy.
The Limits of Power by Andrew Bacevich | American Empire Project
The content of the book very much reflects my dismay at the direction of US foreign policy since the end of the Cold War. Nobody was paying attention to the possibility of actually having to defend the United Limitx of America. It was prepared — it specialized in power projection. Well, been fighting a war in — where? And a second one in Iraq. Now, I think you can make the case for Afghanistan, at least limts terms of you can make a case for the necessity of holding the Taliban accountable for having given sanctuary to al-Qaeda.
And I think, in that regard, if we baecvich at Afghanistan today, we have to see a country that historically, at least as I understand Afghan history, has never limts functioned as an integrated and coherent nation state. You might call them warlords, you can call them local bosses, but authority has been widely distributed.
Were we able to actually do that, I think it would be a wonderful thing. So how is this narrowness taking baceich I think there are differences between the two, but I think we should see the differences as differences in operational priorities. Elect me and will shift our military effort to Afghanistan. Both of them — McCain explicitly, I think Obama implicitly — endorse the notion that a global war on terror really provides the right frame for thinking about US national security policy going forward.
A real debate would be one in which we would have one candidate, and certainly it would be McCain, arguing for the global war on terror and an opponent who was questioning whether the global war on terror makes sense. Talk about this, the global war on terror.
Well, we need to ask ourselves whether that limirs makes sense? What are the costs entailed by waging war for a generation? Where does the money come from? And in a very human sense, who actually pays the cost? I mean, who serves? Whose social needs are getting met, and whose are not getting met, as a consequence of having open-ended global war be this national priority? It seems to me that were we to accurately gauge the actually existing threat — and there is a threat.
There are people out there who want to kill us. And I want to talk about those ways after lmits. And his latest book is The Limits of Power: Could you if about the cost of war and how the militarists learned from your war, from Vietnam, how we are insulated from the true cost? This is the way I would tell the story. President Nixon ends the draft and creates the so-called all-volunteer force, which really is a professional army. What Nixon is trying to do is to basically cut the antiwar movement off at the knees, and his calculation was that by ending the draft, kids would get out of the streets and go back to class.
And to some degree, he actually was right. By the time we get into the s, those JCS concerns have been proven incorrect, and we do end up with, I think, a magnificent professional army. In terms of what you want an army to be like and to do, they are competent, they are disciplined, they know their business. And the post-Cold War period, beginning with the elder Bush, sees this pattern of interventionism — you know, Panama, Iraq, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, on and on piwer on — mostly small conflicts, mostly brief conflicts, conflicts ov which we, the people, sit on the sidelines and mostly applaud, and the all-volunteer force seems like the most successful federal program of the recent decades.
Until you get to Iraq, because Iraq turns out to be not a short war, not a clean war, protracted, ugly, rightfully, I think, controversial and unpopular. He decides he knows how it wants to bavevich used.
Who benefits, Andrew Bacevich? I think who really benefits or what benefits is the political status quo. The national security state, the apparatus of the national security state benefits. The tacit bargain between our political leaders and the American people, which basically assumes that our culture of consumption, our refusal to poder, our bacevjch to oil, as President Bush himself described it, that all of these things can be sustained indefinitely, if we can simply employ our military power in ways to shape the world to our liking.
Now, of course, what we found over the past five, six bacevicch is, our military power is really not nearly as great as many people imagined it to be back in the s, and war has not become an effective instrument limihs politics, as many people imagined back limitd the s.
You talk about massive amounts of money that go into the military, and yet it can be stopped by an Og. One of the great ironies, I think, of liimits Iraq war is that our adversary, who in a technological sense, we would say, has been fairly primitive, our adversary has actually acted much more quickly than we have.
In the competition between the improvised explosive devices as a major weapons system that they have used and our efforts to defeat that system, they have repeatedly acted more ppower than we have. The first meeting of Barack Obama and McCain was with an evangelical reverend, Rick Warren, in California, and they talked about evil and good, and they talked. Of course there is evil in the world and there is good in the world, but guess what? Some of the evil is right here.
I mean, to view international politics through this lens of good and evil leads you to vastly oversimplify and I think also leads you to make reckless decisions. Where do you see all this heading? Well, I think we have. Do you see the end of American empire?
And I limitss the key question is, will the American empire end catastrophically because of our blind insistence that we will not change? Or will we be able to disengage ourselves from and dismantle the American empire in a sensible, reasonable way that will do the least damage to the world and the least damage to ourselves? Andrew Bacevich, I want to thank bcaevich very much for being with us.
His book is The Limits of Power: