Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many folks have noticed the hard partisan nature of most political discussions today, yet at the same time there is an underlying sense that no matter which party a person were to choose the outcomes always seem to end up very similar. As the author in the follow clips points out, this is little more than theater.
Another related point to the following is that Americans have a sense that there are no limits to the US ability to project power and influence around the globe. This manner of thinking combined with a short attention span has brought us the Vietnam war and our current two wars in the Middle East.
I've read this book the first week it came out and was blown away at many of its themes, especially coming from conservative West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, and professor of International studies at Boston University. It plays no favorites to right or left, and flies in the face of conventional wisdom as promulgated by a mainstream ideology of America, right or wrong.
In light of recent events surrounding our war in Afghanistan, I think it is worth visiting some of these salient and well articulated themes.
While I realize that these are likely longer in length than many have time for or have the attention span for, but for those foreign policy and political junkies who might enjoy some frank and in depth conversation on what drives US politics and foreign policy, then by all means.
I think his thoughts on "The imperial Presidency" have really stood out since Clinton and even more so since. This idea that the President is the government and is to be credited and denounced for everything right or wrong is plain, at least on these forums.
Towards the end of the first video where they are discussing Francis Fukuyama's book The End of History and the Last Man leaps out at me as a potent reminder of the "Peace Dividend" that never arrived after the fall of the Soviet Union.
These are some very interesting interview topics. And it's kind of depressing to think about the gap in depth and content between something like this, and the typical quality of shouting pundits on TV, who simplify and contort these complex problems into crudely-ideological shapes that have little resemblance to reality.
Bacevich seems to argue that US foreign and military policy is being dragged around, as it were, by ill-fitting ideologies sponsored by self-interested partisans.
This reminds me of the religious idea of "negative theology." Negative (or "apophatic") theology is the odd but intriguing idea that God's "Godness" is so great that it simply cannot be described. It is ineffable. Therefore, the only way to "approach" God in language is by negation - hence, you can't describe what God is - you can only describe what God is not.
Bacevich describes how American leaders have stumbled into war policies by what seems to me like a similar process - instead of trying to develop clear, defined, and limited policy aims, they instead start with a list of very vague things that are unacceptable (e.g, "Communism must not spread"), and then policy simply ends up chasing that particular phantom, regardless of cost or implicatins. The policy is defined by negation; it is shoehorned into ideology instead of adapting ideology to fit the policy.
So for instance, going into Iraq, we had vague "negative" ideological demand ("Iraq in its current form cannot stand"), but much less in the way of specific policy that took into account the benefits and drawbacks of a variety of ideologies. Instead, the policy on the ground was defined by negation. It ended up being glued together ad hoc after circumstances challenged the initial approach.
Instead of defining and planning for specific and limited goals, we phrase our policies in these vast and vague "negative" terms. We basically make a statement along the lines of "X is unacceptable, therefore we will prevent X." As a result, the terms or scopes of our responses - the things we usually call "policy" - are left blank. They are as ineffable as the God of the negative theologists.
But policy has serious implications for budget, the lives of soldiers, global posture, the economy, stability, and so on.
Maybe that's a bit of a strained comparison, but that's how it feels when I look at the way policy seems to get developed.
These are some very interesting interview topics. And it's kind of depressing to think about the gap in depth and content between something like this, and the typical quality of shouting pundits on TV, who simplify and contort these complex problems into crudely-ideological shapes that have little resemblance to reality.
Yeah, it is refreshing and I would love to see more of this style of in-depth discussions taking place on a TV /cable format, but for now I'll just thank the internet.
Quote:
Bacevich seems to argue that US foreign and military policy is being dragged around, as it were, by ill-fitting ideologies sponsored by self-interested partisans.
What jumped out at me, what that in the wake of National Security Council Report 68 (NSC 68) by Paul Nitze set in motion a great many things, most importantly of which I think was that foreign policy became ideologically driven and it was an ideology based upon overstated threat and some could argue paranoia. Additionally, it also lent itself to discarding foreign policy decision making apparatus in place in favor of small circles of hand picked advisors, most notably Nixon and Kissinger and Bush and the Neoconservatives. It also removed the formal nature of foreign policy and national security decisions into what we have today where nothing is stated as much as it is unspoken, unwritten and just "we know", as there is little to no accountability for poor decisions.
Quote:
This reminds me of the religious idea of "negative theology." Negative (or "apophatic") theology is the odd but intriguing idea that God's "Godness" is so great that it simply cannot be described. It is ineffable. Therefore, the only way to "approach" God in language is by negation - hence, you can't describe what God is - you can only describe what God is not.
See last sentence of post above.
Quote:
Bacevich describes how American leaders have stumbled into war policies by what seems to me like a similar process - instead of trying to develop clear, defined, and limited policy aims, they instead start with a list of very vague things that are unacceptable (e.g, "Communism must not spread"), and then policy simply ends up chasing that particular phantom, regardless of cost or implicatins. The policy is defined by negation; it is shoehorned into ideology instead of adapting ideology to fit the policy.
So for instance, going into Iraq, we had vague "negative" ideological demand ("Iraq in its current form cannot stand"), but much less in the way of specific policy that took into account the benefits and drawbacks of a variety of ideologies. Instead, the policy on the ground was defined by negation. It ended up being glued together ad hoc after circumstances challenged the initial approach.
I'm not sure if it is as much stumbling, as it is over stated and over estimated threat analysis born in paranoia left over from the cold war on one hand, and on the other, a sense of manifest destiny on a global scale. This view were we feel obligated to intervene preemptively to prevent or stop over stated dangers and to spread democracy.
Quote:
Instead of defining and planning for specific and limited goals, we phrase our policies in these vast and vague "negative" terms. We basically make a statement along the lines of "X is unacceptable, therefore we will prevent X." As a result, the terms or scopes of our responses - the things we usually call "policy" - are left blank. They are as ineffable as the God of the negative theologists.
But policy has serious implications for budget, the lives of soldiers, global posture, the economy, stability, and so on.
Well there is an unrealistic sense of invincibility, a treasury with infinitely deep pockets, and all the time in the world to sustain long wars in excess of 10,20,50 years. Truth is, there are limits to our ability to project power, there are limits to how much we can spend and there are limits to how long Americans will capitulate to wars of attrition. As Bacevich pointed out the need for a review and rewrite of NSC 68 that better fits the threats of todays more asymmetrical based danger instead of one formulated towards a Soviet type adversary.
Quote:
Maybe that's a bit of a strained comparison, but that's how it feels when I look at the way policy seems to get developed.
Regardless of what one takes from such policy review, the mere fact that folks take an interest in looking at such policies with a critical eye is a great thing. I find it infinitely more interesting than anything on HBO.
I would like to add the following from page 113 of the book, The Limits of Power
(with full permission from Andrew Bacevich to reprint for discussion purposes in this forum)
In the year since its promulgation, the Nitze Doctrine has become a model to which members of the national security elite have repeatedly turned. Even today, the methods pioneered by Nitze in 1950 retain value. He demonstrated the advantages of demonizing America's adversaries, thereby transforming trivial concerns into serious threats and serious threats into existential ones. He devised the technique of artfully designing "options" to yield precooked conclusions, thereby allowing the analyst to become the de-facto decision maker. He showed how easily American ideals could be employed to camouflage American ambitions, with terms like peace and freedom becoming code words for expansionism [40] Above all, however, Nitze demonstrated the inestimable value of sowing panic as a means of driving the policy-making process. When it came to removing obstacles and loosening purse strings, the Nitze Doctrine worked wonders.
I have since found the .pdf of NSC 68 which I plan to go over in the next few weeks but I also found a link to it in html format.
Although I think it will be better understood by Ron Paul type conservatives and Libertarians more than contemporary Republican types that take a more neoconservative view.
I ordered a couple of copies for some politically minded friends this past Christmas and was rather trilled at the responses since they came from both aisles of the political spectrum.
The book also made several references to Reinhold Niebuhr who have heard mentioned on several occasions in foreign policy discussions and have since set off to further research his views.
Quote:
His long-term impact involves relating the Christian faith to "realism" in foreign affairs, rather than idealism, and his contribution to modern "just war" thinking. Niebuhr's perspective had a great impact on many liberals, who came to support a "realist" foreign policy. His influence has been acknowledged by such recent leaders of American foreign policy as Jimmy Carter, Madeleine Albright, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as well as John McCain
Although I have to question just how much of an impact it has had on their thinking and views when I look at the manner in which our foreign policy is progressed today, which looks a great deal like it always has.
I have rad books thru of the same probelm of attention and basic not believing the governamnt for deacdes now and now leaders have gotten around it from thru out the history of this and other countries. I mean there are new books on such events as WWI that take different views because they are written by humans whop draw a conclusions as always depending often on their general view.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
