Comments on: Bacevich on the American faith in force

By: Richard J

Richard J — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 14:27:35 +0000

ajay> Pedantic point – I’d perhaps add ‘Austria’ to the list of countries fought against, depending on whether a) you view it as a major power, and b) whether you count the French as being properly involved…

By: ajay

ajay — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:52:43 +0000

88 is spot on. The original claim that the US was “outstandingly pacific” in the 19th century is ridiculous, of course.
Then we went to the claim that the US was outstandingly more pacific than European powers, which is equally wrong – the US, like the UK and the other European powers, spent most of the 19th century engaged in wars of imperial expansion.
Now we’re at the claim that the US was different because the European powers were fighting each other as well as engaging in imperial wars, while the US was just doing the imperial thing.

This is wrong too. Two points: first, as noted above (Ellie at 66, for one), the 19th century was actually one of general peace within Europe, certainly compared to the 18th and 20th centuries. And the US actually did go to war with two major powers in the 19th century*: the CSA in 1861 and Spain in 1898. In the same period, Britain went to war with one: Russia. France went to war with two: Russia and Prussia. So the US did just as well as the European powers, despite its geographical disadvantage. If France wanted to fight another power, all she had to do was cross the Rhine or the Pyrenees – the US had to cross an ocean.

It’s also worth mentioning that the US was founded, in part, because its founding fathers wanted to fight lots of aggressive wars, and the British wouldn’t let them.

(*In the Hobsbawm sense – i.e. 1815-1914).

By: Salient

Salient — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 12:20:14 +0000

I agree that the US dispossession of the Native Americans was broadly equivalent to the imperial jaunts of the European powers, though of course the aspirations of the latter group encompassed almost the entire world. What’s striking, as I’ve said several times now, is that the Europeans did this and warred among themselves, directly and by proxy.

This is probably stupid of me, but don’t unstable tax policies and the Atlantic Ocean have as much to do with this as pacifism?

I guess it’s always been my implicit understanding that the United States didn’t/couldn’t get extensively involved in direct conflict with other industrializing imperial powers because (a) the U.S. didn’t have the engineering talent to develop a world-class navy yet, which is what “we” would’ve needed in order to successfully engage in Europe, (b) regardless, the cost of engagement would be too high, in part because the US didn’t have a secure military-funding structure in place until something like 1861 or 1864.

By: novakant

novakant — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 08:49:33 +0000

Ted, you’re hilarious. Especially when posting while drunk (or whatever) – please stick around ;).

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:28:22 +0000

engels

Yes it is ‘one way of looking at it’. Do you think it is good way. Why or why not?

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:27:18 +0000

Doctor Slack

Do you mean funny ‘peculiar’ or funny ‘ha-ha’? Do you agree or disagree that Britian’s ability to project British cultural capital through the BBC and Chanel $ and increased or declined?

By: Ted

Ted — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:25:09 +0000

novakant

I am no idea where you live, just a you have no idea where you live. But really has nothing ti do with Europe’s precipitous decline as a military, economic, cultural, diplomatic, ad ideological force globally. Clearly, your ‘Gotcha’ presumption of my Yank-centric approach was an attempt to discredit me. But it doesn’t. Attack the arguments, not your blind-folded darts game of where posters live, as it has no bearing in the thread.

By: Western Dave

Western Dave — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 02:58:37 +0000

Map Maker @24
Casualties against those committing treason against the duly elected government in a fair and free election are not equivalent to actual and implied violence against citizens trying to exercise their Constitutional rights and liberties. One is part of an act of war, one is evil pure and simple. Who is the moral relativist here? It ain’t me.

By: ralph

ralph — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:58:29 +0000

it’s important to realize I think that the question should not be whether a war is “successful” for others; the question is whether it was successful for us. The reason this is important is because saving other people’s lives—ignoring for the moment whether that’s really what you wanted to do—is an open-ended commitment. Even if we “lost” by conventional terms if we can make an argument that the civilians we invaded were “better off” than before, it doesn’t make the war “won”. The question must be whether on balance we were better off.

Korea really was two wars; one was lost; but the longer one was won, at great cost. I think we ended up winning that one due to our relationship with South Korea and its enterprise, but it’s only because we cannot know the counterfactual. Would a unified Communist Korea collapsed under its own weight? One can’t know.

By: democratic core

democratic core — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:55:44 +0000

Your relegation of the case of the Native Americans to a footnote reflects a fundamental problem with Bacevich. Much of his work is based on an idealized false perception of the US as this nice little republic that was doing just fine until the 20th Century when it started getting involved in foreign wars and then got all militaristic. In fact, the US has been in a state of almost constant warfare since its founding. However, a good case can be made that the US has become less imperialistic over time, particularly since the end of WWII. The US subjugation of Native Americans is similar to the imperialistic policies of European states, as is the American foray into imperialism in the Spanish-American War. Thus, America’s age of imperialism actually coincided with the period when the US was supposedly most “republican” (small R) in character and when the US was least involved in “foreign wars” (again, excluding the wars against Native Americans from the definition of “foreign wars”). Since WWII, the actions of the US generally bear little resemblance to the actions of European colonial empires. The US has not attempted to obtain political control over other nations by military means; territory under the political control of the US has not expanded in over a century. Moreover, the US has generally promoted a global economic order based on free trade, which is diametrically opposed to the mercanitlist, protectionist policies pursued by the European colonial empires. In short, American militarism has had the effect (and I would suggest purpose) of making the world safe for capitalism without expanding the political territory of the US, and ironically, America’s policies have also birthed the great rivals to American economic hegemony – the EU, Japan, and now China. Personally, I like this world a heck of lot more than the world created by the European colonial empires.

By: Scyld Scefing

Scyld Scefing — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 23:52:28 +0000

“An alternative reading of our recent military past might suggest the following…”

Or, reading some Thucydides, viz. the Athenian speech at Sparta in Book I:

“Therefore, deliberate carefully since the matter is weighty, and do not bring trouble home on the basis of foreign opinions and complaints. Realize now that the length of a war is beyond calculation before one is in its midst; when it is drawn out, many things turn on chance, and we are equally far from knowing which of our ways the ultimate outcome will go. Rushing to war, people take action first, which they ought to postpone, and only when they are already worse off do they latch onto words.” (I.78)

By: novakant

novakant — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 18:02:24 +0000

The people who died in Germany in the 1630s and 1640s mostly either starved or succumbed to epidemics [usually both, in effect]. The Hereros should have been so lucky…

Anne Frank died of Typhus, not Zyklon B – guess she should have counted herself lucky and stopped whining …

Are we seriously discussing whether saving S Korea from the DPRK was not worth the cost in casualties? Maybe we could check to see how long it would take the difference in infant mortality rates to add up to the civilian casualties actually suffered.

There are currently more than 50 countries with an infant mortality rate higher than that of NK - do you want to invade them all? Sorry, but you’re crazy.

By: mpowell

mpowell — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:38:33 +0000

Since most of the suffering in the world occurs due to armed conflict and the US is by far the largest arms exporter in the world, the only moral conclusion is to carpet bomb the military-industrial complex – so what’s keeping you?

I’m not even sure what we’re arguing at this point. Are we seriously discussing whether saving S Korea from the DPRK was not worth the cost in casualties? Maybe we could check to see how long it would take the difference in infant mortality rates to add up to the civilian casualties actually suffered. Regarding your point, which I take to be snark, there is a reason defensive wars have much more going for them in terms of moral defensibility. One of the big ones is a straightfoward cause -> effect relationship. The invading army really are intent on killing lots of people if they are not stopped. You could eliminate the US defense complex (which to a substantial extent I would recommend), but people could fight deadly wars with substitute weapons nearly as well. I don’t think carpet bombing is really called for here.

By: alex

alex — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:50:15 +0000

It wasn’t, it was related to magistra’s. Meanwhile, of course, the colonial realm is always a good place to check out the point at which ‘massive civilian casualties’ shades over into ‘genocidal extermination’. The people who died in Germany in the 1630s and 1640s mostly either starved or succumbed to epidemics [usually both, in effect]. The Hereros should have been so lucky…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_and_Namaqua_Genocide

By: novakant

novakant — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 13:23:46 +0000

I don’t see how your point, if you have one, is related to my post, alex.