How Perpetual War Became U.S. Ideology

[Purveyor]

BY James Joyner

The United States has found itself in a seemingly endless series of wars over the past two decades. Despite frequent opposition by the party not controlling the presidency and often that of the American public, the foreign policy elite operates on a consensus that routinely leads to the use of military power to solve international crises.

Ideological Domination

Neoconservatives of both parties urge war to spread American ideals, seeing it as the duty of a great nation. Liberal interventionists see individuals, not states, as the key global actor and have deemed a Responsibility to Protect those in danger from their own governments, particularly when an international consensus to intervene can be forged. Traditional Realists, meanwhile, initially reject most interventions but are frequently drawn in by arguments that the national interest will be put at risk if the situation spirals out of control.

In a widely discussed March essay, Harvard international relations professor Stephen Walt wrote of a "neocon-liberal alliance" in support of war, contending, "The only important intellectual difference between neoconservatives and liberal interventionists is that the former have disdain for international institutions (which they see as constraints on U.S. power), and the latter see them as a useful way to legitimate American dominance."

The Progressive Policy Institute's Jim Arkedis, who describes himself as a "progressive internationalist," calls this notion of a neocon-liberal alliance "bunk." Neocons, according to Arkedis, "disdain multilateral diplomacy and overestimate the efficacy of military force" in a way that "saps the economic, political, and moral sources of American influence." He adds, "Though our ends are similar, our thresholds for intervention, our military methodology, and our justifications for action could not be more different."

MORE...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/05/how-perpetual-war-became-us-ideology/238600/

[Uncle Joe]

1. I believe this is a good essay but I disagree with the author's overall assumption as alluded to

in the title.

"How Perpetual War Became U.S. Ideology"

I don't believe war to be "perpetual," but we are going through a phase now as the world adjusts to the post Cold War Era if another Cold War starts up, the so called realists argument will then dominate.

As the world finally aligns, war on this planet will end, at least up until we discover or are discovered by some intelligent alien life form.

Thanks for the thread, Purveyor.

[Fuddnik]

2. Right now, I'm reading "Washington Rules", by Andrew Bacevich.

A retired Colonel, and current military historian, puts it all into perspective, from the '40s to the near present.

[Thav]

3. Didn't the Romans try this?

They had perpetual war to bring the known world under their rule. After a while they had no one to fight against, and their society didn't know what to do. Couple that with corrupt leadership and what happened?

[poli_ticks]

4. I don't think the author really gets what is going on.

He mistakes publicly stated rationales for real motivations.

Rulers and governments always have to disguise their intent and true goals behind noble and humanitarian sounding rationalizations. Even the Nazis and Italian Fascists did this.

So they may proclaim we are intervening to avert a humanitarian catastrophe in Libya, but note at the same time they're doing nothing to stop the brutal crackdown in Bahrain.

And did they do anything to stop the bloodshed in Rwanda, or Sudan?

If you look carefully at the instances where they did intervene, and where they didn't, it's abundantly clear that the decisive factors are concerns about imperial control and US/Western business interests.

Otherwise we'd have to take at face value ideas such as... neocons truly deeply care about the freedom and welfare of Arabs and muslims. Seriously. A pack of hard-right racist Jewish-Americans that make Likud look like pot smoking hippie peaceniks, who support brutal oppression, collective punishment, and ethnic cleansing for Palestinians have all manner of fuzzy warm feelings for Iraqis deprived of their freedom? I suppose this is why they're all up in arms about the fact that we've poisoned them with DU and murdered so many of them. (/sarcasm)

So: Don't let yourself be fooled by stated rationales. These people are politicians. How do you know when politicians are lying? Ans: when their lips are moving. Look instead at underlying structural factors. One, as part of the governing political class, they're naturally bound to equate "nation" with "government" and therefore mistake anything that enhances the reach, control, and power of the government as somehow being good for the nation. Thus they're going to be predisposed to always opting for expansion of imperial control by the US government. Two, as part of a capitalist system, a society and government influenced and controlled by money, they're bound to be receptive to and sympathetic to the desires and interests of the financial/capitalist class, whatever the stated ideologies of their respective parties. (After all, Liberal lawmakers too need corporate donors to fill their campaign coffers. They too will be sympathetic to corporations based in their home districts, since they employ large numbers of their constituents.) And that means intervention in places where there are valuable resources (like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan) and not in places where there aren't (Sudan, Rwanda).

[Uncle Joe]

5. Perhaps that's because neither ideology be it neocon nor liberal interventionist is strong enough

by themselves and as they're on opposite ends of the political social spectrum, cooperating in public is exceedingly difficult so in order bring the realists on board, national interest must be invoked.

Rwanda and Sudan didn't meet that threshold because they don't have essential resources ie: oil and/or they're not on NATO's border ie: the former Yugoslavia.

[poli_ticks]

8. Realists=Liberal Interventionists.

I doubt liberals naive enough to really believe this sort of propaganda are ever allowed into positions of real power and influence. Not in large numbers, anyhow. And even if they somehow manage to get in, I imagine they'd get "clued in" in very short order.

So I would argue that for the most part, liberal interventionists are actually just realists lying about why they're really intervening. I mean, even if you're a completely sociopathic black-hearted cold-blooded misanthrope who doesn't value human life at all and cares only about national power or whatever, you *must* sound like a liberal interventionist in public. Nobody dumb enough not to get that would ever be allowed in government. Or at least, to speak on behalf of the government.

And this is why even the neocons, if you think about it, actually sounded like liberal interventionists in public - liberate the Iraqi people and democratize the whole region, and all that.

The only difference between the two camps was a relatively minor tactical one - the realists wanted to maintain the siege a bit longer, to see if the plan to starve them until the regime fell would work, and the neocons felt no, we've besieged and starved Iraq for 10 years already so let's go to the next tool in the Imperialist toolbox and take the place by direct assault.

[Uncle Joe]

9. So what would you have done

about Rwanda or Sudan?

[poli_ticks]

10. I object to questions like this being asked.

You're essentially asking me to place myself in the POTUS' shoes.

This is a subtle device by which the peasants are made to identify themselves with their overlords, and empathize with their "plight" (the "difficult" situation in which our leaders must be finding themselves).

It also reinforces the meme, the impression that people have, that we are a democracy, and the government does the things that it does because we (the peasants) think it ought to be done.

I don't believe the US government works like this. At all. It does the things that the Ruling Class wants it to do.

So as a peasant, I oppose all US government interventions abroad. When it goes abroad, it always has an ulterior motive. The good that does come out of it, is there as sugarcoating, to buy liberal consent and approval. But because the relationship between the Ruling Class and the peasants is adversarial, the overall outcome, good minus bad , must be a net negative for us peasants.

And because I understand that's the way the government works, I would never run for POTUS. And even if I were POTUS, I would not be able to do my will.

So as a peasant - oppose intervention. Oppose it in Rwanda, Sudan, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, everywhere. As POTUS? The question is moot. Not only would I never be, if I were I think I would be far more constrained than people might think.

[Uncle Joe]

11. I apologize for putting you in a challenging position.

I believe it's difficult to walk in anyone else's shoes, whether you're a "peasant" attempting the projection to the Presidency or the President living in a bubble projecting your self to the peasantry.

And yes, the U.S. isn't a democracy, we're a democratic republic with a representative form of government, I also agree with you that the powers that be, aka; ruling class; actually pulls the strings.

Having said that we are here discussing for all the world to see, motivations and policies and as so many drops of water eventually erode the largest boulders to sand, I believe so do our thoughts, posts and actions.

In short, we do have power and while the President or ruling class may not rule on behalf of the "peasantry," we still owe it to ourselves and them ample feedback re: their choices pro and con, even if it isn't what we would do.

[poli_ticks]

13. It's not so much that the question is challenging

some questions just do not have answers and I have no problems saying "sorry, that question doesn't have a correct answer."

It's that I think we're forgetting our role in the system, and not relating to our leaders correctly.

That is, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that our leaders are there to implement our opinions and preferences. We ought to recognize that the hard realities of how power, wealth, and influence are distributed through society means that our leaders' interests will diverge from our own (that is, they will cooperate with those who already have wealth and influence, rather than doing what we want them to do). So we need to take far more radical, strident positions to create some hard constraints of our own. E.g. shift public opinion so far that the Ruling Class will be forced to yield, for fear of open revolt.

[Uncle Joe]

14. I wasn't expecting a correct answer, just an answer.

On an earlier post you questioned the true motivations of the political leaders stating that they chose to interfere in some nations affairs while not doing so in others as if that alone were a blanket indication of their interests.

My contention is that criteria alone is not enough to pass judgment.

For every action there is a reaction, this held true in 1920s and early 1930s Germany when the "radical, strident positions" fought for domination as Communists and Fascists battled in the streets leading to that nation's and eventually global catastrophe and it holds true today.

I believe public opinion can be shifted but far more effectively by the use of reason, logic, enlightenment, empathy and persistence than the obstinacy of hard, radical and rigid constraints.

I believe that we should be resolute but not dogmatic, lest we become that which we hate the most.

[poli_ticks]

15. I see what you mean.

Yes, the human brain is a pretty strange and bizarre device, and it is capable of all sorts of strange things like holding two completely opposite ideas at the same time. And of self-deception, and rationalization, etc. So yes, in the strict sense I agree that you're right that one can't pass completely certain judgment on what our political leaders are thinking when they make their decisions.

The net outcome is "as if" they are motivated by what I stated, and I still feel we ought to treat them as if that was what motivated them, but strictly speaking it's possible they persuaded themselves they're doing it for entirely other reasons as well.

And I agree that one ought to seek to effectively persuade; I did not mean to imply the opposite of that with "radical, and strident positions." I meant rather we ought to recognize that the line should be drawn far further to the left than most Democrats draw it, and we should defend it resolutely, because it's the only logical and defensive place you can draw a line. I.e. if you concede we can have a few bases outside the US, and can intervene in a few regions, then it's an easy slippery slope. You will need bases to defend the bases you already have, and you will be pulled further and further into those regions as your presence naturally creates resentment and enemies.

[classysassy]

7. The big motivator

Has always been money(other peoples resources),we the serfs have always bought into the masters lies about helping the poor and helpless,"Oh what fools we mortals be"We need to drain the moat and charge the gate,remove the King and reform our government.I am not suggesting a physical revolution a voter revolution rid this country of the hired shills(Congress)remove all current members that vote for tax breaks for the wealthy,that vote for intervention in other countries and those that continue to spend over half our taxes on the military.Bring back the draft and the wealthy criminals will think twice before engaging this country in wars for profit.

[Martin Eden]

12. Well Stated

I was about to respond that military intervention is more about wealth & power than the stated ideological reasons, but you stated it very well.

[defendandprotect]

6. k