Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

4.06 of 5 stars 4.06 · rating details · 417 ratings · 90 reviews

The bestselling author of The Limits of Power critically examines the Washington consensus on national security and why it must change

For the last half century, as administrations have come and gone, the fundamental assumptions about America's military policy have remained unchanged: American security requires the United States (and us alone) to maintain a permanent armed...more

Hardcover, 304 pages

Published August 3rd 2010 by Metropolitan Books (first published 2010)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

American Foreign Policy

14th out of 155 books — 67 voters

The Constitution of the United States of America by Founding Fathers

The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the U... by Thomas Jefferson

Best Books to Become an Informed Voter

298th out of 568 books — 750 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 911)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Dec 07, 2010 Naeem rated it 4 of 5 stars

Recommended to Naeem by: Martin

The main contribution of this book is the continuity that Bacevich shows in US foreign policy from Eisenhower to Obama, from Vietnam to Afghanistan, from Westmorland to Petraeus. The "Washington Rules" are designed to police the world regardless of which party is in power or which president is in the white house. This is what he wants us to see.

Bacevich is a former colonel turned academic. His interpretations of various generals, various policies, and various wars have the ring of an insider's i...more

like 1 like · see review

Apr 01, 2013 Jeremy Hickerson rated it 4 of 5 stars

In "Washington Rules" retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich challenges and largely refutes the idea that Presidents of the United States have much effect on our country's use of military force. This is a startling idea and on the face seems false, but he makes a strong case that there is a bipartisan (or maybe non-partisan) consensus in favor of military intervention among the Washington players which is accepted by the American public. Reading Bacevich you come away thinking that even the Cheney...more In "Washington Rules" retired Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich challenges and largely refutes the idea that Presidents of the United States have much effect on our country's use of military force. This is a startling idea and on the face seems false, but he makes a strong case that there is a bipartisan (or maybe non-partisan) consensus in favor of military intervention among the Washington players which is accepted by the American public. Reading Bacevich you come away thinking that even the Cheney/G.W. Bush "war of choice" in Iraq was more of a logical continuation of this policy than an aberation. I guess you could say that the pretext of weapons of mass destruction was not that much different than Lyndon Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin incident, although Johnson was motivated more by what he felt was political necessity than choice.

Bacevich shows how the change from using the military for defense to using it to (attempt to) advance U.S. interests began in the 50's during the build up of nuclear weapons. (I say "attempt" because it is doubtful that the results of intervention have benefited our interests.) General Curtis LeMay, then head of the Strategic Air Command, asked for and got the money and authority needed to give the U.S. overwhelming capability for destruction using nuclear arms. The quote below gives a window into the mood of the times:

"...Strategic Air Command and Gathering of Eagles, serious movies made by serious filmmakers, qualify as camp. Meanwhile, Dr. Strangelove, an exceedingly funny movie, retains its standing as a serious commentary on the absurdity of nuclear war..."

The public bought into the ideas in Strategic Air Command and Gathering of Eagles during the time when those ideas were the basis for policy, although they soon became laughable and horrific. But the damage was done and the legacy (multiplied many times over) is with us today and probably for years to come.

Vietnam was a sort of turning point, for a few decades making U.S. Presidents very reluctant to commit military forces, but Bacevich points out how quickly this lesson has been un-learned and erased from the national consciousness. In fact, he seems to imply that Gen. David Petraeus rewrote the Army Field Manual on Counter Insurgency precisely to justify the Vietnam strategy in Iraq, when it had been discredited in Vietnam. The real lesson military brass learned from Vietnam, according to the author, is that operations that take very much time will lose public support. But this check has been removed by having an all-volunteer military. Now we have over one hundred thousand (I think this is the number) soldiers deployed in combat and most of us hardly notice. It makes an argument for bringing back the draft.

The best question posed in this book is:
Wouldn't it be sufficient if the United States' military budget was equal to the combined budgets of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and Cuba, instead of "40% of global arms spending and ... over six times larger than the military budget of China" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military...).

How many of you knew this? It is clear that we have moved well beyond the motivation of defense. My feeling is that by maintaining this huge military capability we create the temptation to use it. We need to take this option off the table. If our military budget were the size Bacevich suggests I don't think we'd be able to consider things like fighting a war in Afghanistan.(less)

like · see review

Jan 07, 2013 Tony rated it 4 of 5 stars

What are the Washington Rules?

War can break out at any time. We need to be prepared for that.
We reserve the right to have military establishments all over the world.
We don't have to wait for someone to attack us. We reserve the right to pre-emptively attack anyone if we think they will conflict with our interests.

Somewhere back in the '50's, in the aftermath of World War II, it was determined that the US must stand up to anyone and everyone else in the world, militarily, in making the world safe...more

like · see review

Jul 19, 2012 Travis rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: politics

Though it sometimes lacks nuance and occasionally strays into hyperbole or clichés regarding what some might call the "imperial hubris" of the United States, Bacevich's Washington Rules makes the straightforward and compelling case that the American "military-industrial complex," so feared and derided by the libertarian crowd, has been progressively expanding its clout vis-a-vis the civilian authorities since the Second World War, and consequently threatens to swallow up American civic culture....more Though it sometimes lacks nuance and occasionally strays into hyperbole or clichés regarding what some might call the "imperial hubris" of the United States, Bacevich's Washington Rules makes the straightforward and compelling case that the American "military-industrial complex," so feared and derided by the libertarian crowd, has been progressively expanding its clout vis-a-vis the civilian authorities since the Second World War, and consequently threatens to swallow up American civic culture.

The Goliath of the defense establishment, according to Bacevich, has become especially formidable over the last decade, as the American experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq saw expectations for quick and stunning victory devolve into a grim determination on the part of policy-makers to persevere in the "long-war" of counterinsurgency efforts and covert action.

This mindset, which, given the abstractions involved in identifying our enemies and the arbitrary nature of distinguishing between civil and military affairs and of defining victory or defeat, serves to justify a permanent state of war. As a result, military institutions which have traditionally been called upon only when necessary for national defense and viewed with suspicion, are becoming and could continue grow as permanent staples of our political life.

I found the last chapter to be especially thoughtful and prescient, as Bacevich implores us to "cultivate our garden," in the words of Voltaire's Candide, and dust off the insights of men like George Washington and John Quincy Adams. Although idealists at heart and firm believers in the new nation's republican virtues, they felt that the United States should lead by its example, and not by the force of its arms. In order for the world to be made safe for democracy, America must be made safe for democracy. They warned that empire-building could not "resolve" history; a prospect put forward by idealists as diverse as Hegel and Fukuyama.

As J. William Fulbright eloquently said, and Bacevich quotes, "I think that man is qualified to contemplate metaphysics but not to practice it. The practice of metaphysics is God's work."(less)

like · see review

Apr 23, 2012 Mike Hankins rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: military-history, politics

In Washington Rules, former Army Officer Andrew Bacevitch traces the history of the United States from Truman to the present day, arguing that after World War Two, Washington (as in, policy makers and government as a whole) have created a system of "rules" dedicated to American Imperialism. Essentially he argues that America has become militaristic, using force to impose it's will upon the rest of the globe. He vehemently calls for an end to this type of imperialism, wanting desperately for Amer...more In Washington Rules, former Army Officer Andrew Bacevitch traces the history of the United States from Truman to the present day, arguing that after World War Two, Washington (as in, policy makers and government as a whole) have created a system of "rules" dedicated to American Imperialism. Essentially he argues that America has become militaristic, using force to impose it's will upon the rest of the globe. He vehemently calls for an end to this type of imperialism, wanting desperately for Americans to return to their roots as he sees them, as a more isolationist country.

Bacevitch's book is a bit spotty on it's history. He is obviously cherry-picking his examples, twisting situations to match his thesis, and his sources consist entirely of secondary materials such as newspapers and magazines, as opposed to primary archival evidence. So in this sense, the book is a little flawed, and his angry prose might not win over many converts. Despite these weaknesses, I think Bacevitch is making some very good points, and saying things which need to be said. Even if you disagree with his conclusions, Bacevitch is asking the questions that America needs to be asking of itself. These issues should be continually debated by government leaders, but they are often ignored completely. This habitual denial is one of Bacevitch's main arguments.

Starting with a parallel look at the creation of the CIA and SAC (Strategic Air Command), Bacevitch shows that shortly after World War Two, America placed itself in a position of "global leadership" in a fight against the perceived threat of communism. This threat was the justification for the overthrow of governments via clandestine spy operations as well as the buildup of nuclear arms and the Air Forces that would deliver them. This creation and maintenance of hegemony through military means became the defining characteristic of the American government (of either political party), as Bacevitch sees it.

His discussion of Vietnam is of particular interest. Shifting to new tactics of "nation building" and "counterinsugency," America found itself in a difficult spot. Bacevitch shows these methods to be extremely ineffective, and links them directly to the current war on terror and the similar techniques being used in Iraq and Afghanistan, arguing that they are equally useless. He denounces the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the war on terror, as unwinnable, as they have no clearly defined victory condition. Thus his Washington Rules have pushed America into a permanent state of war with no concievable end.

The book is one-sided, yet raises a lot of important points. Those who agree with him will find a lot of confirmation and encouragement, and those who disagree will likely not make it through the first few pages. Unfortunately, his poor sources and biased lens invite criticism. However, these issues need to be talked about. The fact that, in an election year, almost no one in the mainstream media is asking questions about America's permanent state of war, it's effect on civil liberties and the economy, and the assumptions behind American foreign policy is atrocious. Like him or not, Bacevitch is asking the right questions, and deserves to be taken seriously.(less)

like · see review

Nov 02, 2011 Joe rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: finished-irp-books, favorites

In nineteen-thirty-nine a war broke out that effected the entirety of the human race. America entered this war two years later, in nineteen-forty-one. This war, with it’s world-wide battleground, became known as World War Two. In ‘Washington Rules’ by Andrew Bacevich, America’s global policy is described in a straightforward manner. After WWII, America had just felt a real victory. It had come out as the leading military power of the day, and it sure wanted to stay that way. Bacevich follows th...more

like · see review

May 02, 2011 Jeremy rated it 5 of 5 stars

A very good aggressive critique of the foreign policy norms of American politics. Bacevich writes extraordinarily well about how America has evolved from a Republic in which a standing army and navy were anathema to most leaders and the public to a nation that casually tolerates lengthy wars and constant interventions abroad, along with a military budget larger than the rest of the world's. There are holes in his logic--he is so busy arguing that America is on the wrong path that he largely fail...more

like · see review

Mar 26, 2011 John rated it 3 of 5 stars

Both historical and polemical, the book focuses on U.S. national security policy, which, no matter the president, has remained fundamentally unchanged since the end of WWII. The book argues that our policy was and is: 1) a worldwide military presence; 2) armed forces configured not for defense but for global power projection; and 3) a tendency for overt or covert interventionism in the affairs of other countries. (The current incursion into Libya is a good example of the policy in practice.)

Bace...more

like · see review

Feb 25, 2011 Bennet rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history-politics-war

Heads up. The war in Iraq has officially ended but The Long War has not. Iraq and Afghanistan are but two fronts in an ever-expanding military campaign.

From page 193: "'Our conflicts tend to be timeless,'" Gen. Sir Rupert Smith wrote in his book The Utility of Force, "'even endless.' Sir Rupert thereby put his finger on one key element of the gradually emerging conventional wisdom in the U.S. military: An officer corps that had once resolved to avoid protracted war at all costs now (post 9/11)...more Heads up. The war in Iraq has officially ended but The Long War has not. Iraq and Afghanistan are but two fronts in an ever-expanding military campaign.

From page 193: "'Our conflicts tend to be timeless,'" Gen. Sir Rupert Smith wrote in his book The Utility of Force, "'even endless.' Sir Rupert thereby put his finger on one key element of the gradually emerging conventional wisdom in the U.S. military: An officer corps that had once resolved to avoid protracted war at all costs now (post 9/11) contemplated an era of conflict without end."

How did this happen? And just what are we accomplishing? Bacevich wants to know and has made it his business to find out.

"Washington Rules" is the fourth installment of a thesis on American militarism and foreign policy from one of the (if not THE) most important voices to be heard on both subjects. Bacevich's scholarship and credentials are exemplary. He's also a good writer, which is a good thing because all four books need to be read. He's written more than that, but I consider these four of a piece: "The Limits of Power," "The Long War," "The New American Militarism," and "Washington Rules."

On page 5 of "The Limits of Power," the thesis commences with Bacevich's contention that "the actions of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, however malevolent, cannot explain why the United States today finds itself enmeshed in seemingly never-ending conflict . . . the impulses that have landed us in a war of no exits and no deadlines come from within. Foreign policy has, for decades, provided an outward manifestation of American domestic ambitions, urges, and fears."

"Washington Rules" follows the evolution of American military policy and strategy from post-WW II to post-9/11, starting with the contributions of two men: Allen Dulles and Curtis LeMay.

From page 24: "If historical standing were a function of enduring legacy, then Allen Dulles and Curtis LeMay, both all but forgotten today, would each rate a memorial on the Mall in Washington . . . During the pivotal decade of the 1950s, they raised to prominence two organizations that helped define the maxims by which Washington came to operate, and went a long way toward enforcing them as well: in Dulles's case the Central Intelligence Agency; in LeMay's, the Strategic Air Command."

The book winds up at GCOIN, America's global counterinsurgency initiative, also known as The Long War, which amounts to the current state of military affairs, spearheaded by Gen. David Petraeus. If you're wondering how the heck we got from Dulles and LeMay to Petraeus, well, you should. Read this book to find out.

Americans don't pay much attention to war anymore, so if you're one of those in need of a reason to care about The Long War, consider this, from page 217: "The numbers, whether measured in dollars expended or lives lost were (and are) almost certain to be daunting. One optimistic retired four-star general put the bill (of the war in Afghanistan)at approximately $600 billion."

And Afghanistan is not where this military campaign ends; until Americans start paying more attention, there's no end in sight.
(less)

like 2 likes · see review

Nov 07, 2010 Bruce rated it 3 of 5 stars

This is rather a companion piece to William Pfaff’s recent book, The Irony of Manifest Destiny, both works providing incisive and devastating critiques of America’s current foreign policy and blindness to more constructive alternatives to our current futile and destructive course. Bacevich’s book is clearer and more lucid but less carefully argued and nuanced in its argument. Both cannot but depress the concerned reader and citizen. Neither leaves one with much cause for optimism or hope for sig...more

like 2 likes · see review

Oct 31, 2010 Randy rated it 5 of 5 stars

Andrew Bacevich has paid his dues to the flag as a West Point graduate, career army officer and father of a son killed in Iraq. He writes books critical of American foreign policy, in this case a set of "Washington Rules" which dictate the creepy way that we behave around the world which has been consistent since the end of WWII and has been supported by all Presidents from Harry Truman to Barrack Obama.
Here are the Washington Rules:
1. The world must be organized (shaped) or chaos will reign.
2....more Andrew Bacevich has paid his dues to the flag as a West Point graduate, career army officer and father of a son killed in Iraq. He writes books critical of American foreign policy, in this case a set of "Washington Rules" which dictate the creepy way that we behave around the world which has been consistent since the end of WWII and has been supported by all Presidents from Harry Truman to Barrack Obama.
Here are the Washington Rules:
1. The world must be organized (shaped) or chaos will reign.
2. The United States is the only country that possesses the capacity to enforce a global order, to organize the world to avoid this chaos.
3. America is in charge of defining the principles that define international order and the most recent American articulation of these principles is the only one that counts.
4. The world wants the US to lead.

As a result of the Washington Rules our national treasure is expended around the world with a military budget that exceeds the combined military budgets of the entire rest of the world. Including our ships at sea, we have nearly 400,000 troops garrisoned overseas (and thousands more of military contractors) at 761 sites in 39 countries. We have divided the world into military "commands" including a Space Command plus a Strategic Command which owns a force of missiles and bombers always on alert with enough force to blow up the planet many times over.
Mr. Bacevich writes that his own education began as an army colonel when he finally had a chance to observe, first hand, Soviet Army forces in East German and realized that the great threat posed by the Cold War was a sham. The Soviet Army was weak and poorly equipped.
But when the Cold War ended, when we had "won" Washington Rules did not change. The military industrial complex that Ike warned us about (after his term was over) came up with new threats (China, terror, drugs) for us to fear and to justify the enormous cost of Washington's Rules.
Sadly, there is no real public discussion. We accept Washington Rules and they are supported by a vast network of media, lobbyists, and think tanks in addition to the Pentagon and defense contractors. The few who advocate closing down the empire (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich, for example) are marginalized as cranks and not serious. Democrats are no better than Republicans as evidenced by Obama's immediate acquiescence to the general's request for 40,000 additional troops in Afghanistan.
"At one level, we can with little difficulty calculate the cost of these efforts: The untold billions of dollars added annually to the national debt and the mounting toll of dead and wounded US troops provide one gauge. At a deeper level, the costs of adhering to the Washington consensus defy measurement: families shattered by loss; veterans bearing the physical or psychological scars of combat; the perpetuation of ponderous bureaucracies subsisting in a climate of secrecy, dissembling, and outright deception; the distortion of national priorities as the military-industrial complex siphons off scarce resources; environmental devastation produced as by-product of war...; the evisceration of civic culture that results when a small praetorian guard shoulders the burden of waging perpetual war, while the great majority of citizens purport to revere its members, even as they ignore or profit from their service. Furthermore, there is no end in sight..."

So until we decide as a national community that rebuilding Detroit is more important than investing in Kabul the Washington Rules will rule us, our wealth will go into an imperial foreign policy instead of building and supporting infrastructure needs.
We all tacitly support Washington Rules. Often it is through the litmus test of "supporting the troops," through honoring the service of vets, as with the upcoming Veterans Day celebration at our local school and at schools around the country. I'm a vet with more than twenty years of service but find it hard to get behind these celebrations that, in their small way, perpetuate Washington Rules. It might be more productive for the kids to write letters to all the family practitioners in the area begging them to take Tricare patients (that's the military's medical insurance which doesn't pay enough to interest most doctors).
(less)

like · see review

Sep 24, 2010 Matt rated it 4 of 5 stars

I just finished reading Bacevich’s latest book, entitled “Washington Rules: American’s Path to Permanent War.” As always, Bacevich delivers a concise read that is informative and inspiring.

This book opens with Bacevich discussing his own “turning point” in his understanding about America and its involvement with the world in the last 50-60 years. He briefly describes a long walk he took with some fellow soldiers in East Germany after the collapse of the Berlin Wall in the early 1990s. On this wa...more

like · see review

Mar 04, 2011 Tiffoknee the 3rd Conner rated it 4 of 5 stars

In the parallel universe in which I am president, Dr. Bacevich would be in my cabinet as my Secretary of Peace and Common Sense Diplomacy. That's right. Because in my parallel universe there would be no more Department of Defense, and I am confident that with the aid of a learned man like Dr. Bacevich at my side I would find success.

This is a concise criticism of the military-industrial complex. As Mr. Bacevich himself says, and I am grossly paraphrasing and doing an injustice to his eloquence,...more

like · see review

Feb 22, 2013 Marks54 rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is an impassioned and informed analysis of the persistence of the fundamental assumptions in the US defense establishment, even in the face of defeats and even the dissolution of the principal threat. He sees these rules as perpetuating a defense establishment, high and wasteful spending, and a propensity to intervene in the affairs of other nations that border on imperial expansionism. The story is very critical, although it rings true with the history of the times. Many of the arguments w...more This is an impassioned and informed analysis of the persistence of the fundamental assumptions in the US defense establishment, even in the face of defeats and even the dissolution of the principal threat. He sees these rules as perpetuating a defense establishment, high and wasteful spending, and a propensity to intervene in the affairs of other nations that border on imperial expansionism. The story is very critical, although it rings true with the history of the times. Many of the arguments will not be new to those following history and analysis of the US since WWII and Vietnam.

While I appreciate and largely agree with the argument, the presentation is not as effective as it could be. Yes, there are continuing fundamental assumptions behind the military establishment, but what is wrong with that? The problem is that the assumptions are not clearly linked to either the overall economic and political needs of the country or to the realities of the military environment facing the US. I don't see the problem is viewing the military as an instrument of foreign policy. That argument as been made since the time of Clausewitz. The point is to reevaluate our national defense goals on a continuing basis.

Bacevich also have separated other factors that support the tendency to maintain old assumptions. For bureaucratic inertia is well known is lots of arenas. Once a program is established, there is a bias towards its continuation. The military is a special case of this. A related point is that once rules, policies, and habitual practices get established, they tend to persist and take on a life of their own. This is different from the content of the "Washington Rules" but is part of the problem Bacevich analyzes.

All of these arguments tends towards a devaluation of the role that individuals play in defense matters. Presidents do not control as much as they think they do. The is more continuity across US administrations than is commonly thought. This is all true, but Bacevich spends a lots of time in the book talking about individuals, largely noting their influence. This begins with Dulles and LeMay in the early years of the Cold War and continues with references to Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Kissinger, McNamara, Rumsfeld, and lots of others. If this is an institutional inertia that is being considered, then why are individuals so important?

These issues are not meant to take away from the argument. I think Bacevich is on target and largely defensible. The book is also very well written. The issues with the analytical rigor become more important towards the end of the book, in discussing what to do. It is one thing to point out the problem. It is another to frame the problem in a way that leads to sensible policy. I am certain that Bacevich's other work has been following up on how to do that.

Overall, the book was effective and worth reading(less)

like · see review

Mar 10, 2013 Phyllis rated it 4 of 5 stars

I don't think I would have selected this book on my own--it arrived as a Christmas present from my in-laws. However, I am glad that I did read it. While I agree with another reviewer that Bacevich does not argue his points as thoroughly as I would have hoped (especially since, as a layperson, I don't have the depth of knowledge to evaluate them), he does outline a clear history as to how we are where we are in terms of our foreign policy and our military interventions. His description of the evo...more

like · see review

Aug 22, 2010 Marcus rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2010-reading, political-economics

An expose of the Military Complex that President Eisenhower warned America about. This is a serious book that is well documented and written by a form Colonel of the US Army. It should be required for all high school students.

The book is part history, part political and part economic. I particularly enjoyed the historical section where Bacevich discusses the creation of Strategic Air Command and the CIA. He explains how they grew out the end of World War II and during the cold war to proportions...more

like · see review

Mar 25, 2013 Rohan rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book took me by surprise. It gives a straightforward and succinct account of the US National Security Policy and Foreign policy since the second world war.

The Author is compelling and persuasive in making his points. He delivers a fantastic critique of the US's continuance involvement in the affairs of several countries all over the world. He in fact gives great amount of detail on the "Military Industrial Complex" and Bureaucratic Imperialism that have contributed immensely in US's presen...more

like · see review

Sep 14, 2010 Phil Mullen rated it 4 of 5 stars

This is a fine overview, from a knowledgeable ex-Army colonel &
professor, of where the U.S. has chosen to go since 1945 -- 65 years of striving for global power.

And now we are indeed the hegemon -- but broke; & tremendously resistent to the deep turns required for self-correction.

For us liberals, Bacevich presents some of the attitudes we might brush off as "std. conservative take" -- & argues persuasively that they are not partisan (though perhaps drenched in partisan rhetoric). To...more

like · see review

Oct 20, 2010 Ronspross rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: politics

The author is one of my favorite conservative thinkers (other people in that list include Mickey Edwards and Andrew Sullivan). He is a retired military man, has several other books on politics and the military. He lost his son a few years ago in Iraq. This book makes the (very compelling) case that America has been overcome by exactly what Dwight Eisenhower warned us against, the military/industrial complex. There are no mainstream Republicans and only a hand full of Democrats who come close to...more

like · see review

Aug 31, 2010 Michael rated it 5 of 5 stars

I started an article on salon.com and bought the book. Here's the essence and usable message that I get so far. As the billions that the US has to squander abroad dry up, it's an opportune time to get a concept of how like an empire the United States has operated since - say the presidency of Teddy Roosevelt. If the military industrial complex ceases to try to shape the world in its image, the citizens of the United States can tend to our own business and well being. With open eyes, perhaps the...more

like · see review

Apr 10, 2013 Eddy Allen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: arts-and-historical

For the last half century, as administrations have come and gone, the fundamental assumptions about America's military policy have remained unchanged: American security requires the United States (and us alone) to maintain a permanent armed presence around the globe, to prepare our forces for military operations in far-flung regions, and to be ready to intervene anywhere at any time. In the Obama era, just as in the Bush years, these beliefs remain unquestioned gospel.

In a vivid, incisive analys...more

like · see review

Dec 27, 2010 Bob Mayer rated it 5 of 5 stars

The reality of the ruling elite of our country. They care only about making money. We are in a perpetual state of war. Ask yourself, really, what are we going to accomplish in Afghanistan? What did we accomplish in Iraq? No WMDs. But oil. But where are the profits we were supposed to get off that oil? No one speaks of that any more. We paid off the bad guys and they waited for us to leave. Unfortunately, the same won't be true in Afghanistan. Just more death and more profits for the warmakers.
We...more

like · see review

Dec 19, 2010 Richard rated it 5 of 5 stars

Bacevich covers a second Washington Consensus, this one different from the Washington Consensus generally referred to when discussing economic policy. This book covers the underlying assumptions that have been a part of the National Security consensus since the Cold War and the various ways Washington elites of various stripes, referred to generally as "Washington" in the book, maintain these assumptions and ensure that they never get questioned in any serious way. The author argues that not onl...more

like · see review

Sep 07, 2010 Lev Raphael rated it 5 of 5 stars

A short, powerful book by a former military man arguing that the American establishment is so deeply invested in militarism and empire that it doesn't matter who the President is. That establishment is larger than the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned against: it includes lobbyists, consultants, think tanks, the media. All of them follow the "Washington Rules" without question. A bracing, revelatory, passionate critique of the drift away from a Republic. Readers of Tim Weiner's "Lega...more

like · see review

Apr 21, 2012 Jonathan rated it 5 of 5 stars

As someone who identifies with a non-interventionist foreign policy I was initially surprised to find out that Dr. Bacevich was one as well. And quite a forceful one at that.

Having not only read this particular selection but also dissecting and writing specific points for future reference. The point behind this book as well as Bacevich's other books is to shed light on our foreign policy, in particular our foreign policy since the end of the Second World War. He criticizes our need to exercise...more

like · see review

Oct 05, 2010 Lauren rated it 4 of 5 stars

The title of this book is a bit more sensationalist than the book itself, which contains the sort of measured, even-keeled analysis that never fails to win me over (and is difficult to find in politics-related books anymore). This book goes beyond nonpartisan to be almost antipartisan: peaceniks and blood-thirsty hawks need not apply. Dr. Bacevich traces the shift in national security from World War II until the Bush Administration, and he is consistent in his analysis, drawing themes through th...more

like · see review

May 19, 2012 Jenni Earll rated it 2 of 5 stars

I definitely learned something reading this book. The book covered many areas I was unfamiliar with and gave a historical background on how we got to the position we are in now in respect to permanent war. For those of us unfamiliar with the inner workings of the military in our government and how deeply involved they are it offers quite an eye-opener. It's something I knew, but I didn't realize how far it went. The writing is a bit choppy and academic in places and doesn't always flow very well...more

like · see review

Aug 13, 2010 Edie rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

I had the author sign my copy to the students at St. Albans because I think this is a VERY important book. The author, a West Point grad and retired military strongly states that America cannot be the policeman of the world, that we need to lead by example rather than brute force (as he says, we've been in Afghanistan for 9 years and are they better off now than they were before?). He talks about the importance of cultivating our garden at home and the arrogance that has grown from an all volunt...more

like · see review

Jan 26, 2011 Terri rated it 4 of 5 stars

Challenging to me. I struggle to understand the military's understanding of peace and how the nuclear arsenal could be part of that. When I read of our plans to obliterate the people of the previous USSR I can't help but wonder how we've become so lost as a people. What's even more disturbing is the disconnect of somehow believing that killing millions could ever bring peace - violence will always breed violence. History is clear on this. It's time to move toward nonviolence, it's time for the s...more

like · see review

Jun 26, 2011 R. Ayres rated it 5 of 5 stars

Bacevich's book is an attempt to synthesis a broad, clear picture of US foreign policy, and to answer a persistent but largely ignored question: why, in spite of all that has changed in the last 30 years, has nothing changed in Washington? Where is the "peace" we have been repeatedly promised by candidate after candidate and president after president? His thoughtful analysis comes from serious depth - he is both a scholar and a soldier - and should be read by anybody who cares about what is done...more

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 30 31 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Chat with Andrew Bacevich on Sept. 24!	1	4	Sep 13, 2010 11:09am

combine
Other Editions (4)

Genres

Politics

22 users

History

17 users

Non Fiction

16 users

War > Military

5 users

Politics > Government

4 users

Literature > American

2 users

Military > Military History

2 users

War

2 users

Science > Technology

2 users

Social

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Andrew J. Bacevich

Andrew J. Bacevich, a professor of history and international relations at Boston University, retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of colonel. He is the author of Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War and The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism and The New American Militarism. His writing has appeared in Foreign Affairs, The Atlantic Monthly, The Nation, The New York...more

More about Andrew J. Bacevich...

Books by Andrew J. Bacevich

The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism

The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War

American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U.S. Diplomacy

The Short American Century: A Postmortem

The Imperial Tense: Prospects and Problems of American Empire

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Washington Rules:...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Washington Rules: Amer...

“I began to appreciate that authentic truth is never simple and that any version of truth handed down from on high-whether by presidents, prime ministers, or archbishops-is inherently suspect.” — 5 people liked it

“The folly and hubris of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended 'global war on terror' without the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won, and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords.” — 4 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War
avg rating	preview: Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War Goodreads rating: 4.06 (417 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7720138-washington-rules?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1317066071l/7720138.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7720138-washington-rules?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War by Andrew J. Bacevich[/url]

Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website