 |
The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew Bacevich
Book Summary InformationAuthor: Andrew Bacevich Edition: Paperback Audio: English (Unknown); English (Original Language); English (Published) Published: 2009-04-27 ISBN: 0805090169 Number of pages: 224 Publisher: Holt Paperbacks
Book Reviews of The Limits of Power: The End of American ExceptionalismBook Review: Unfortunately incomplete and uneven Summary: 3 Stars
While I have given this book only three stars, nevertheless I strongly recommend you read it. The crises described by Professor Bacevich are real and worth thoughtful consideration.
First, I believe that it is important to give a context to a review--briefly I am almost a decade older than Professor Bacevich, not a military academy graduate, and not having fought in Viet Nam. I've worked most of my career in the business area and have neither a diplomacy nor an academic background. This is the first of his works that I have read. As other readers would know, Professor Bacevich quotes heavily from Reinhold Niebuhr. While I am familiar with the name, I am not well read in his works.
Second, since there are nearly 200 reviews posted for this boook, I will attempt to limit my comments where they may provide additional insight. For example, others have outlined and summarized the main arguments by Professor Bacevich. Perhaps obviously, I may repeat comments by others since I did not read all prior reviews.
The reason for my relatively low rating for the book (vis-a-vis the majority of reviewers) rests on two criteria-I found the book both uneven and incomplete. By uneven, I mean that his voice / arguments vary widely among the three different crises he describes. I found him exercising his most authentic voice when describing the failure of miitary leadership in the chapter on the Military Crisis. He held many of the recent past military leaders to a very high standard of conduct and found them largely wanting. On the other hand, in the chapter on Profligacy he sounds much more like an Old Testament prophet or perhaps a scold and in the chapter on the political crisis, he sounds extremely uncertain, almost wishy-washy, about the standards to hold our government officials to. While he is fairly aggressive in decrying the Executive Branch, and he begins to do the same with respect to Congress, but then backs off.
In the Profligacy Crisis chapter, Professor Bacevich chronicles briefly a history of the United States, listing both well and ill conceived strategies. For my taste I would have preferred that these had been put in a more broad historical context, perhaps referring to and using "A Nation Among Nations" by Professor Thomas Bender which attempts to view american history in the context of several different issues and how they were handled across the globe, instead of a stand alone litany. Also, perhaps dealing with the background of the Constitution would have been helpful rather than using the Declaration of Independence for the most part; such as was done recently by Professor Richard Beeman in his "Plain, Honest Men".
In the chapter on Political Crisis, I believe he is insufficiently critical of former President Carter, in particular for his handling of both the Iranian hostage situation, and the high levels of inflation experienced during his tenure, while at the same time giving former President Reagan insufficient praise, for his handling of both. See for example Robert Samuelson's "The Great Inflation and Its Aftermath" for an excellent exposition of how Reagan with Volcker broke the back of inflation. Not all crises are dealt with by military force.
As for incompleteness, he seems to argue that we are a profligate people, that we are living beyond our means, which leads to a dependence upon imported oil, which in turn leads us to use military power in the Middle East to insure our access to that oil. If I have his argument correct, then the problem with it lies in the fact that Asian / Pacific countries and Northwest European countries are the main consumers (+/- 85% of the roughly 17 million barrels per day of PG oil production). Thus if one argues that the purpose of our military presence in the ME is to protect oil, then it must be for the A/P and NWE countries which consume it, which leads one to ask why are we doing the oil protection for those nations? And, of course, what would happen if we stopped? If the argument is more simple, i.e. we are too dependent upon imported oil, and that leads us to the military incursions, then one is led to ask why those nations with a much higher dependence upon imports are not? For example, Japan and South Korea are essentially 100% dependent upon imported oil, as are some European countries. U.S. oil imports tend to come from Canada, Mexico, the North Sea, Venezuela, the west coast of Africa, as well as the ME. If defending our sources of imported oil were the basis for using US military, then perhaps it should be used with respect to Venezuela? Also, the US dependence upon all PG produced oil is roughly 4% of total US energy consumption. It would seem that this relatively small component could be eliminated by relatively simple conservation techniques, if the appropriate policies were enacted? Thus, if one examines the factual information with respect to oil flows and US imports, it would appear that the reasons for military presence in the PG are a good deal more complicated than simply to protect US Middle East oil access.
None of the above should be taken to say that the Americans are not great consumers, we are. I'm certain each of us has our own litany of excesses we note in others every day. In this Professor Bacevich is correct. However, again, when he says 'we' are living beyond our means--that our requirements exceed our means to meet them--it would be extremely helpful to define the 'we', for as the old saying goes, if everyone is to blame, then no one is to blame. In particular, does he mean we as individuals, the group we, or does he mean also the federal government representing 'we'? This matters both in describing the 'crisis' as well as contemplating appropriate remedies.
Even in what I see as his strongest chapter, on the Military Crisis, he is unsatisfyingly incomplete. He describes the problem with the military theory of 'full spectrum dominance' and compares it to Professor Francis Fukuyama's 'The End of History' seemingly dismissing Fukuyama's 'democratic capitalism' also, without explanation. I, for one, found Fukuyama's theory worthwhile and would have appreciated an explanation of why Professor Bacevich seems to not--or perhaps I am the only one not in the know?
In his closing chapter he begins to outline a few paths the United States might pursue instead of the current heavily military power strategy. He mentions curbing emissions to reduce global warming; he mentions 'containment' of radical Islam. He mentions abolishing nuclear weapons. As I write this review we are just a few days beyond the unfortunate meetings in Copenhagen, where the best that was achieved was an agreement for each country to prepare of list of actions; and a few weeks beyond the release of hundreds of e-mails prepared by leading AGW proponents, apparently showing their less than open mindedness with respect to hard temperature data. Clearly, the jury is still out on AGW and strategies for curbing fossil fuel emissions. While containment did work with respect to the USSR, it is not clear to me how it would work against a non-nationally based group. How does one contain an 'idea'? At a somewhat higher level, it seems Professor Bacevich comes close to saying that we need 'systemic' changes in the United States, but avoids doing so. For example, if the federal government is dysfunctional, and we are deluding ourselves by assuming we will get the desired change by simply electing a new President every four or eight years, then why not propose changing the system. Why not a balanced budget ammendment to curb both Presidential and Congressional spending appetites? Why not term limits for Congress to counter the gerrymandering they have accomplished to avoid serious competition? Obviously such proposals are aimed at the group 'we', and not at each of us individually. Recall the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different outcomes!
I note that several reviewers found the lack of detailed solutions by Professor Bacevich problematic, while others seemed satisfied that he had 'identified' the problem. I would side with the former. Even in family conversations I believe, where there is a strong mutuality of language and frames of reference, we frequently find it is not until we begin exploring 'solutions' that we find we truly share an understanding of the 'problem'.
Again, I do recommend that this book be read, but wish that Professor Bacevich had written a more complete theory, and can only hope that he will soon flesh this small volume out in a more complete manner.
Summary of The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism?Andrew Bacevich speaks truth to power, no matter who?s in power, which may be why those of both the left and right listen to him.??Bill Moyers An immediate New York Times bestseller, The Limits of Power offers an unparalleled examination of the profound triple crisis facing America: an economy in disarray that can no longer be fixed by relying on expansion abroad; a government transformed by an imperial presidency into a democracy in name only; and an engagement in endless wars that has severely undermined the body politic. Writing with knowledge born of experience, conservative historian and former military officer Andrew J. Bacevich argues that if the nation is to solve its predicament, it will need the revival of a distinctly American approach: the neglected tradition of realism. In contrast to the multiple illusions that have governed American policy since 1945, he calls for respect for power and its limits; aversion to claims of exceptionalism; skepticism of easy solutions, especially those involving force; and a conviction that Americans must live within their means. Only a return to such principles, Bacevich eloquently argues, can provide common ground for fixing America?s urgent problems before the damage becomes irreparable.
Public Policy Books
|
 |