{"id":110817,"date":"2020-05-09T20:00:40","date_gmt":"2020-05-09T20:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/uncategorized\/2020\/05\/09\/dispatch-from-rome-militarism-in-america\/"},"modified":"2026-08-08T12:19:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-08T12:19:24","slug":"dispatch-from-rome-militarism-in-america","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/one.sightlinemg.com\/militarytimes\/commentary\/2020\/05\/09\/dispatch-from-rome-militarism-in-america\/","title":{"rendered":"Dispatch from Rome: Militarism in America"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

For my money, one of the best military-political theorists of our time is retired Army Col. Andrew Bacevich. I recently re-read his 2005 instant classic, \u201cThe New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War\u201d that he wrote while serving as a professor of International Relations and History at Boston University. In his analysis, militarism in America is a sad reality. His observations over a decade ago are every bit as useful and on-point now as they were then \u2014 proof positive that the ultimate standard of a classic is to stand the test of time.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bacevich begins his work with a statement of fact: \u201cToday as never before in their history Americans are enthralled with military power. The global military supremacy that the United States presently enjoys \u2014 and is bent on perpetuating \u2014 has become central to our national identity.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although I believe that the author is quite correct in his assessment, I would take the position that militarism in America is in fact not altogether new, but merely now wearing a contemporary suit of clothes. In any case, modern or mature, the phenomenon presents a danger to the republic. What is this danger?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan are telling. Bacevich points out that President George W. Bush stated unequivocally and implausibly that he would, \u201crid the world of evil.\u201d We know that evil has been around for a long time and that achieving such an objective was not possible. In any case, a huge military would be necessary to attempt it. It may be worthwhile to point out that President Woodrow Wilson was cut from a similar, if less ambitious, bolt of cloth based in idealism. But in the attempt, Bush embraced militarism to strike out at perceived enemies in the wake of 9\/11. However, Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks on the twin towers and Pentagon. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bacevich goes on to state that \u201c\u2026Americans in our own time have fallen prey to militarism, manifesting itself in a romanticized view of soldiers, a tendency to see military power as the truest measure of national greatness\u2026\u201d Soldiers who know that there is nothing romantic about war inevitably ask themselves why else are we still in Afghanistan after two decades of conflict and what have we accomplished?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

His analysis suggests a possible answer: \u201cThe Republican and Democratic parties may not be identical, but they produce nearly identical results. Money buys access and influence, the rich and famous get served, and those lacking wealth and celebrity get screwed\u2026\u201d \u201c\u2026the system is fundamentally corrupt and functions in ways inconsistent with the spirit of genuine democracy. This anyone with eyes to see recognizes.\u201d The Republican Bush was followed by the Democrat Obama, who embraced with only a bit less enthusiasm the killing of terrorists with the military cudgel.<\/p>\n\n\n\t