General Discussion - The Limits of Power

[Meghan]

Please discuss The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew J. Bacevich.

[Ed]

Written by a true conservative, ex-military officer and current Boston University professor, this book concisely explains how the actions of citizens, government and the military over the last 45 years have pushed the U.S into the position it finds itself in today.

In the Chapter titled "The Crisis of Profligacy", Bacevich skewers Americans for surrendering their true freedom for the illusory freedom of materialism. He also shows how the need for both power and abundance has undermined people's ability to manage their finances and also undermined U.S. power.

As he puts it at the end of the Chapter: "Long accustomed to thinking of the United States as a superpower, Americans have yet to realize that they have forfeited command of their own destiny. The reciprocal relationship between expansionism, abundance and freedom - each reinforcing the other - no longer exists. The reverse is true: Expansionism squanders American wealth and power while putting freedom at risk."

In Chapter 2, "The Political Crisis" Bacevich decries the establishment of an Imperial Presidency. He faults Congress for willingly ceding authority to the Executive Branch, especially when it comes to National Security. All they seem to care about is getting re-elected.

He also critiques the ideology of National Security and demonstrates how this ideology actually creates less security. All politicians and most Americans have accepted this ideology without question. It has given rise to a power elite in Washington that is more interested in protecting its turf than serving the American people.

He is partcularly critical of the Bush doctrine of preventive war and sees it as both morally and politically corrupt. He also effectively skewers the idea that it is a sacred mission of the U.S. to export freedom. The ideology of National Security as practised by an elite of "Wise Men Without Wisdom" has led us into a situation where we are engaged in a "War Without End".

As he points out at the end of the chapter: "The Wise Men...have repeatedly misconstrued and exaggerated existing threats, with perverse effects."

"No doubt today's Wise Men see themselves as devoted patriots...Yet that's not good enough. Those...whose advice yields horrific consequences of the sort we have endured beginning on 9/11 and continuing ever since. They have forfeited any further claim to trust."

In Chapter 3, "The Military Crisis", he documents how our military leaders have misused and misunderstood the power they have under their control. Politicians and military leaders have illusions about our ability to exercise our military power that lead them to expectations that are completely out of line with reality.

He discusses the enduring nature of war and its cruel realities, that confound not only those who we choose to govern us but also the Generals who are charged with war operations. He is particularly harsh on the expertise and leadership of most of the Miliary leaders who have risen to the top since the Vietnam War.

He is particularly critical of the lack of strategic thinking on the part of those in charge. He points out that we don't need a bigger army but rather a focus on a more modest foreign policy so the soldiers are given tasks consistent with their capabilities.

Supporting our trooops is not affixing a plastic emblem on a vehicle bumper but rather reining in the illusions of grandeur of our political and military leaders.

In his conclusion, Bacevich helps us realize that no matter who we elect as President the illusions and conditions we have created will continue. There is no easy fix. Promising to restore the status quo of power, abundance and exceptionalism will not give us the results we need to change things.

We have created a condition of dependence on imported goods, imported oil, and credit. This is not a good thing. We have somehow built a society based on material expectations where wants have become needs and needs have become rights. Somehow we must accept that there are limits, limits to our power, to our financial strength and limits to seeing Americans as exceptional. It's time for some humility and reality.

As Reinhold Niebuhr once wrote, "To the end of history, social orders will probably destroy themselves in an effort to prove they are indestructible".

Bacevich closes by pointing out that "Clinging doggedly to the conviction that the rules to which other nations must submit don't apply, Americans appear determined to affirm Niebuhr's axiom of willful self-destruction".

[Ed]

The upcoming election is key, obviously.

This book will help you see how the choices play or not play out.

It is not a political book. It's a philosophical treatment.

What do you think?

[Ed]

re: "The Limits of Power"

I am most likely over-reacting but I find it sad and instructive that dozens of people commented on "Eat, Pray, Love", myself included. I rather liked the book. Yet, no one has cared to comment on this powerful indictment of the American System by a patriot and clear thinker. This in the midst of a clearly important Presidential election.

Perhaps it's easier to engage in literary criticism and personal reaction than tackle political ideas.

I hope someone can explain what I see as a disconnect from reality. I don't get it.

[Meghan]

Good point. I don't have a real answer. I, myself, am trying to get through Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton, which I'm finding very interesting. However, I am getting distracted by all my other book club books, and well, "fun" reading. But considering that this is an election year (and such a hot topic one), one would think that political reading would be more pressing.

[Meghan]

After reading your synopsis (well done!), does Bacevich give any solutions to some of his issues: such as how we become independent of imported oil (does he favor oil drilling in Alaska?).

I do think that it's interesting that almost 1/3 of our debt is owed to China and Japan (China is like 30% and Japan 10%). I don't have a problem with China (I live there), but I have a problem when we feel it's okay to borrow money from them, but then try to take a political stance against them for public relations points.

He kind of sounds like Ron Paul. Is he libertarian or just a better conservative than most Republicans?

[Ed]

Re: Limits of Power

Bacevich suggests a number of solutions. More drilling is not one of them.

1. People must give up the idea that a new "Imperial" President is going to fix everything. That's what got us in trouble in the first place. We must realize and act to change the current illusion of freedom (materialism) to a reality of freedom.

2. Live within our means as individuals, families and as a nation.

3. Give up our dependence on foreign energy. Really, not as a political slogan.

4. Acknowledge the limits of U.S. power and work for concurrence with others on major issues.

5. Instead of a Global War without end on terrorism, take a page out of thje Cold War and work to contain the spread of radical Islam in concert with others.

6. Direct our diplomatic efforts and resources in two directions; abolishing nuclear weapons, including our own, and stopping Global Warming.

I, too, live in China if one can consider Hong Kong a real part of China. I share your disgust with the hypocricy of depending on China to support our deficits and fund our national debt while criticizing them in what appears to be a PR effort to build our "Human Rights" credentials. In many ways the Chinese government is more responsive than our own. Hong Kong's government definitely is more transparent and responsive than the U.S. even with an appointed CEO.

Lastly, I doubt if Bacevich can be labelled. When I used the term "true" conservative I was contrasting his conservatism with the pseudo conservatism of most Republicans.

Even though most people consider me a Democrat, I believe in fiscal restraint, limiting the power of government, national or local, limiting the influence of religion on national policy, and self responsibility and choice combined with compassion for those who deserve it. Am I a conservative? No! Am I a Liberal as defined today? No! Liberal used to mean having an open mind - a rare quality in today's political climate of 30 second sound bites and attack ads.

Enough! The book is only 182 pages long and can be read in about four or five hours, so clear is his writing.

Thanks for your comments.