The new American Militarism
Parshang Khakpour
The New American militarism:How Americans Are Secured By War provies a vital guide on how to avoid the kind of post_vietnam reaction that saw the military hit its drug_ridden nadir in the seventies, and shows how narrative of the joys of "power projection" was woven by decades of persuasion in churches, on televisions, in scholarely journals.
The writer descriebes in his book, how Andrew Marshall and not millitary leaders, transformed a strategy of naked aggression and the fact that the greatest threat to the U.S. is not terrorists but the neoconservative beliefe that American security and well_being depend on U.S. global hegemony.The problem is not how to deal with terrorism but the catastrophe, that America is God's instrument for bringing history to it's exalted role ceates the delusion that America's virtue is unquestioneable delusion that led to the "cakewalk war".
The author breaks apart the components that he asserts are feeding the new national militarism_ a changing Presidency whose emphesis in international affairs is focusing too heavily on the use of military force; a military prifession which in it's struggle to adupt to post_war vietnam realities " made militarism possible , and has "ended up paying much of the price;" the emergence, ruthlessness , and eventual foreign policy dominance of a small group of neoconservative intellectuals; the societal impact of Hollywood; the hardening of the conservative Christian community, which provides a "presumptive moral palatability" to American militarism: The transmission of American strategic development following World War II, away from the military and into the hands of scientists who regularly fail to comprehend war's human dimentions; and an oversized emphesis on the Middle East, coupled with relentless efforts at the second tier of government, wich has dangerously "converted the Persian Gulf into the epicenter of American grand strategy."
There is also the first overt articulation of a confrontation that has slowly been gathering steam for more than ten years.One side is represented by those with a classical training in America's past wars , who would send American forces into harm's way only if the nation is directly threatened.The other side is domonated by a group of theorists, most of whom have never seen the inside of a military uniform , and adhere the notion that American should export it's ideology around the world at the point of a gun.
The books makes it clear that the American reflex to using the military force overseas is not the sole domain of the current President .According to the book there is a "New Wilsonisn moment" under George Bush, where he channels American quixotic World War I President and fancies himself as remarking the Middle East in the image of America.The writer also suggests that America's Middle East problem began, not with 9/11 , but with Jimmy Carter's unhappy 1979_80 encounter with the Iranian Islamic revolution. With the Carter Doctrine, the Persian Gulf and it's oil reserves were enshrined as vital American intreststo be protected by military force.
The writer's argument on the neoconservative movement is considerable for it's lack of rancor and for it's analysis of the slash and burn poilitical tactics this small group of influential intellectuals has brought to the national forum.
The writer outlines both the power of the Christian Right and it's ability to provide moral cover for the continuouse use of force,and lok at the history and motivations of the Christian Right by charactrizing them in religious rather than ethnic terms, and lables the movement as having been anti_military in the past.
Regarding the takeover of military strategy by academic theorists following World War II will help thinking Americans comprehend an area of national policy that is rarely discussed or debated.
Althought the author respects to American military, he charactrizes the Cold War from an Army_centeric perspective and focuses on the ground threat in central Europe and blames the military's loss of credibility with it's civilian counterparts as being derived heavily from the actions of Colin Powell and Wesley Clark.
However, the military's difficulties with it's civilian counterparts has a far more complex history and in many cases running directly to the takeover of American strategic formulation following World War II.
Parshang Khakpour
The New American militarism:How Americans Are Secured By War provies a vital guide on how to avoid the kind of post_vietnam reaction that saw the military hit its drug_ridden nadir in the seventies, and shows how narrative of the joys of "power projection" was woven by decades of persuasion in churches, on televisions, in scholarely journals.
The writer descriebes in his book, how Andrew Marshall and not millitary leaders, transformed a strategy of naked aggression and the fact that the greatest threat to the U.S. is not terrorists but the neoconservative beliefe that American security and well_being depend on U.S. global hegemony.The problem is not how to deal with terrorism but the catastrophe, that America is God's instrument for bringing history to it's exalted role ceates the delusion that America's virtue is unquestioneable delusion that led to the "cakewalk war".
The author breaks apart the components that he asserts are feeding the new national militarism_ a changing Presidency whose emphesis in international affairs is focusing too heavily on the use of military force; a military prifession which in it's struggle to adupt to post_war vietnam realities " made militarism possible , and has "ended up paying much of the price;" the emergence, ruthlessness , and eventual foreign policy dominance of a small group of neoconservative intellectuals; the societal impact of Hollywood; the hardening of the conservative Christian community, which provides a "presumptive moral palatability" to American militarism: The transmission of American strategic development following World War II, away from the military and into the hands of scientists who regularly fail to comprehend war's human dimentions; and an oversized emphesis on the Middle East, coupled with relentless efforts at the second tier of government, wich has dangerously "converted the Persian Gulf into the epicenter of American grand strategy."
There is also the first overt articulation of a confrontation that has slowly been gathering steam for more than ten years.One side is represented by those with a classical training in America's past wars , who would send American forces into harm's way only if the nation is directly threatened.The other side is domonated by a group of theorists, most of whom have never seen the inside of a military uniform , and adhere the notion that American should export it's ideology around the world at the point of a gun.
The books makes it clear that the American reflex to using the military force overseas is not the sole domain of the current President .According to the book there is a "New Wilsonisn moment" under George Bush, where he channels American quixotic World War I President and fancies himself as remarking the Middle East in the image of America.The writer also suggests that America's Middle East problem began, not with 9/11 , but with Jimmy Carter's unhappy 1979_80 encounter with the Iranian Islamic revolution. With the Carter Doctrine, the Persian Gulf and it's oil reserves were enshrined as vital American intreststo be protected by military force.
The writer's argument on the neoconservative movement is considerable for it's lack of rancor and for it's analysis of the slash and burn poilitical tactics this small group of influential intellectuals has brought to the national forum.
The writer outlines both the power of the Christian Right and it's ability to provide moral cover for the continuouse use of force,and lok at the history and motivations of the Christian Right by charactrizing them in religious rather than ethnic terms, and lables the movement as having been anti_military in the past.
Regarding the takeover of military strategy by academic theorists following World War II will help thinking Americans comprehend an area of national policy that is rarely discussed or debated.
Althought the author respects to American military, he charactrizes the Cold War from an Army_centeric perspective and focuses on the ground threat in central Europe and blames the military's loss of credibility with it's civilian counterparts as being derived heavily from the actions of Colin Powell and Wesley Clark.
However, the military's difficulties with it's civilian counterparts has a far more complex history and in many cases running directly to the takeover of American strategic formulation following World War II.
No comments:
Post a Comment