Washington Rules America's Path to Permanent War essay

Download this essay in word format (.doc)

Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formatting

Excerpt from essay:

Washington Rules: America's Path To Permanent War

Written by a former Army Colonel, Washington rules: America's path to permanent war (Bacevich, 2010) is a striking analysis of America's pro-military psyche and determination to "to lead, save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 12) through worldwide militarism. Commencing post-World War II, the global military presence that has become a fact of American life has been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike, though it has significantly drained our resources. While some critics and this reader take issue with some aspects of Bacevich's book, in many respects it provides a voice of sanity in the face of the U.S.'s now-unbearable global pro-war stance.



Bacevich's book is anything but the compliment, "Washington Rules!" Washington rules: America's path to permanent war (Bacevich, 2010) relates his own educational journey from a pro-military conservative soldier to a questioner who attacks the American consensus about America's global rights and responsibilities. Bacevich states that since World War II, two components have dominated the American consciousness regarding our military presence on the globe. The first element is a "credo" that "summons the United States -- and the United States alone -- to lead, save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 12). The second element is a "sacred trinity" of continual consensus, no matter which political party controls the White House or Congress: "an abiding conviction that the minimum essentials of international peace and order require the United States to maintain a global military presence, to configure its forces for global power projection, and to counter existing or anticipated threats by relying on a policy of global interventionism" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 14). "Global military presence" means that the United States maintains military personnel and weapons around the world. "Global Power Projection" means that the United States positions, arms and plans its forces to strike anywhere in the World, at least theoretically "immediately." "Global Intervention" means that the United States has the right and duty to essentially police the World, intervening in any threatening situation.

Based on these two elements of credo and trinity, the United States has spread its military might around the globe in a so-called "flexible response" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 60) that keeps us in a constant state of pre-war or war, believing that we have the right, duty and capability of policing the entire world. Though this stance has been couched in the term "flexible response" since the Truman and Eisenhower administrations, the global aggression is unmistakable. Bacevich maintains that those two elements have "propelled the United States into a condition approximating perpetual war" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 16). Consequently, in times of international crisis, such as 09/11, America is not disposed to reevaluate its foreign policy; rather, America's response is uniformly and expensively military. That condition seemed workable at one point but is no longer viable for the United States: "The Washington rules were forged at a moment when American influence and power were approaching their acme. That moment has now passed" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 16). Bacevich maintains that the U.S. has used up and/or lost the authority, good will and respect it had in 1945, and "no longer possesses sufficient wherewithal" to sustain its credo and trinity (Bacevich, 2010, p. 16).

While explaining our aggressive credo and trinity, Bacevich remains an equal-opportunity accuser. Rather than pointing the finger at a single presidential administration, Congress or political party, Bacevich traces the birth, growth and abiding history of our global militarism through every decade, starting with the presidential administration of Harry S. Truman and continuing through at least the first administration of Barack Obama (Bacevich, 2010, p. 20). In fact, Bacevich lays much of the abiding blame on persons other than any given president, who is actually "Pretending to the role of Decider" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 31). In Bacevich's estimation, presidents are largely controlled by the structures built by someone else, such as Allen W. Dulles, the CIA director from 1953 -- 1961 and major developer of the CIA in the 1950's (Bacevich, 2010, pp. 37-8) and Curtis E. LeMay, who built up the Strategic Air Command, starting in 1948, to become a major instrument for nuclear war (Bacevich, 2010, pp. 35, 45). Bacevich believes the CIA and SAC were significantly instrumental in building a Washington consensus of global military domination: "Important in their own right, these institutions wielded influence well beyond their formal mandate. The CIA and SAC promulgated a set of precepts that left a deep and lasting imprint on the entire National Security State" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 34). Though Bacevich specifically speaks of Dulles and LeMay as major architects of the Washington consensus, he also blames the individuals and institutions that gain from our perpetual state of emergency, such as: defense contractors; big banks; interest groups; major corporations; television networks; elite publications. As far as Bacevich is apparently concerned, these people and institutions perpetuate Washington rules for their own gain of money, power or prestige (Bacevich, 2010, p. 15). Bacevich also blames the American public, who encourage or at least allow this Washington consensus (Bacevich, 2010, p. 154). According to Bacevich, Americans notice only colossal disasters like Vietnam and "The citizens of the United States have essentially forfeited any capacity to ask first-order questions about the fundamentals of national security policy" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 27).

In Bacevich's estimation the "consensus": grew during the Eisenhower administration (Bacevich, 2010, p. 60); was embraced by the Kennedy administration partly due to President Kennedy's fixation of Fidel Castro (Bacevich, 2010, p. 79) and partly due to Kennedy's belief that Vietnam would test our "flexible response" capabilities (Bacevich, 2010, p. 90); grew during the Johnson administration, particularly when he committed combat troops to Vietnam in 1965 (Bacevich, 2010, p. 31); suffered markedly during the Johnson, Nixon and Ford administrations, due to the "draw" (or defeat) in Vietnam and strong anti-war sentiment (Bacevich, 2010, p. 122); was directly confronted by the Carter administration, which attempted to change the way in which Washington works (Bacevich, 2010, p. 241); then saw a resurgence under the Reagan administration (Bacevich, 2010, p. 152) and the George H.W. Bush administration's so-called "preventive war" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 137) that continued through the Clinton administration (Bacevich, 2010, p. 137), grew to perhaps its greatest strength during the George W. Bush administration (Bacevich, 2010, p. 171) and has continued through the Obama administration (Bacevich, 2010, p. 249).

In the face of these problems, Bacevich offers solutions. He suggests a new credo based on our Constitution and Declaration of Independence that makes the U.S. A model of our ideals rather than a global military empire (Bacevich, 2010, p. 237). In addition, Bacevich would replace our current militaristic "trinity" with a new trinity that: uses our military only for national defense and to protect vital national interests (Bacevich, 2010, p. 238); withdraws our troops from occupation of areas "where the American presence costs the most while accomplishing the least" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 239); and rather than keeping a very large army of warrior-professional soldiers who are constantly ready for war, using citizen-warrior soldiers for specific military events (Bacevich, 2010, pp. 240-3). Accompanying those suggestions, Bacevich stresses the importance of the American people: "If change is to come, it must come from the people" (Bacevich, 2010, p. 249) because Washington has too much to lose by changing.

Analysis and Critical Evaluation

The Author

A review of Bacevich's background is useful for determining his qualifications to make his assertions. Bacevich was graduated from the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, served in the U.S. Army for 23 years, is a Vietnam veteran and retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of Colonel (Bass, 2010). After retirement from the military, he obtained a PhD in American Diplomatic History from Princeton University and taught at West Point and John Hopkins before joining the faculty of Boston University's Department of International Relations. He is currently the Director of Undergraduate Studies and a professor of International Relations and History at Boston University. He has authored or edited several books about American militarism, including: American empire: The realities and consequences of U.S. diplomacy (2002); The new American militarism: How Americans are seduced by war (2005); The long war: A new history of U.S. national security policy since World War II (2007); (editor); The limits of power: The end of American Exceptionalism (2008); and Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War (2010). He has also written essays and reviews for such notable publications as: The Wilson Quarterly, The National Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Nation, The New Republic, New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Boston Globe, and Los Angeles Times. Finally, he has held fellowships at the American Academy in Berlin, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, the John F. Kennedy School of Government and the Council on Foreign Relations (Boston University, 2012). Clearly, Bacevich's orientation and educational/professional history are geared toward the examination of U.S. militarism abroad and his expertise has been…[continue]

Cite This Essay:

"Washington Rules America's Path To Permanent War" (2012, June 01) Retrieved November 29, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/washington-rules-america-path-to-permanent-80363

"Washington Rules America's Path To Permanent War" 01 June 2012. Web.29 November. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/washington-rules-america-path-to-permanent-80363>

"Washington Rules America's Path To Permanent War", 01 June 2012, Accessed.29 November. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/washington-rules-america-path-to-permanent-80363

Other Documents Pertaining To This Topic

  • Bush v Obama Foreign Policies

    The administration's disregard for international norms led to the excesses at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, and attempts to circumvent congressional oversight over the activities of the Administration backfired. Faced with increasing criticism at home and the inability to stabilize Iraq, the Bush Administration began to temper its approach with realism. The Administration agreed to a bipartisan Iraq Study Group, led by former Secretary of State James Baker and

  • Social Impact of Cold War & Terrorism

    Social Impact of Cold War & Terrorism The Cold War is often associated with the idea of making great and physical divides between the good and the bad of the world. It was a symbolic representation that extended for about 30 years on the expectation that the greatest powers of the world could, under the right circumstances, impose a sort of benign order on the planet by isolating the evil empires

  • Indian Israeli Relations Valuable to India s

    ' Indians across the political spectrum, especially the country's powerful nuclear weapons establishment, are critical of the NPT, arguing that it unfairly warps international hierarchies to the disadvantage of the non-nuclear-weapon states" (1998:15). In its efforts to balance the pressures from the international community with its own self-interests in formulating foreign policies, the position adopted by India has been starkly different than other countries. In this regard, Karp concludes that,

  • U S Invaded Iraq in 2003 Why U S

    U.S. INVADED IRAQ IN 2003 Why U.S. Invade Iraq 2003 invasion of Iraq has a number of forceful effects that relate to the influence of the 9/11 occurrence in the country. The then U.S. president who happened to have been President Bush pushed for the U.S. invasion of Iraq amidst the actions that Saddam had done to the U.S. In most avenues of performance, it is clear that the U.S. attack

  • How Did Nursing Change Social Roles of Northern Women During the...

    Nursing & Women's Roles Pre-and-Post Civil War The student focusing on 19th century history in the United States in most cases studies the Civil War and the causes that led to the war. But there are a number of very important aspects to 19th century American history that relate to women's roles, including nursing and volunteering to help the war wounded and others in need of care. This paper delves into

  • Post War Iraq a Paradox in the Making Legitimacy vs Legality

    Post War Iraq: A Paradox in the Making: Legitimacy vs. legality The regulations pertaining to the application of force in International Law has transformed greatly from the culmination of the Second World War, and again in the new circumstances confronting the world in the aftermath of the end of the Cold War. Novel establishments have been formed, old ones have withered away and an equally enormous quantity of intellectual writing has

  • Origins of Cold War the

    As a matter of fact, by the end of 1980s, Soviet Union ran on these very principles. Kennan criticized the possibilities that Soviets may be involved in invading the pro-Soviet countries with their mind sets and weaken them even if they do not form a higher level of apprehension for them. Pro-Russian countries will be weakened through a designed framework to tackle the mindsets of the people following western ideologies. Fights will be

Read Full Essay
Copyright 2016 . All Rights Reserved