Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsOpinion

Op-Ed

U.S. foreign policy: War fever subsides

As Americans weary of the mission in Afghanistan, Democrats and Republicans alike are raising serious questions about the nation's propensity for multiple, open-ended wars. Finally.

June 28, 2011|By Andrew J. Bacevich

At periodic intervals, the American body politic has shown a marked susceptibility to messianic fevers. Whenever an especially acute attack occurs, a sort of delirium ensues, manifesting itself in delusions of grandeur and demented behavior.

By the time the condition passes and a semblance of health is restored, recollection of what occurred during the interval of illness tends to be hazy. What happened? How'd we get here? Most Americans prefer not to dwell on the questions. Feeling much better now! Thanks!

Gripped by such a fever in 1898, Americans evinced an irrepressible impulse to liberate oppressed Cubans. By the time they'd returned to their senses, having acquired various parcels of real estate between Puerto Rico and the Philippines, no one could quite explain what had happened or why.

In 1917, the fever suddenly returned. Amid wild ravings about waging a war to end war, Americans lurched off to France. This time the affliction passed quickly, although the course of treatment proved painful: confinement to the charnel house of the Western Front, followed by bitter medicine administered at Versailles.

The 1960s brought another bout (and yet more disappointment). An overwhelming urge to pay any price, bear any burden landed Americans in Vietnam. The fall of Saigon in 1975 seemed, for a brief interval, to inoculate the body politic against any further recurrence. Yet the salutary effects of this "Vietnam syndrome" proved fleeting. By the time the Cold War ended, Americans were running another temperature, their self-regard reaching impressive new heights.

Then came 9/11, and the fever simply soared off the charts. The messiah nation was really pissed and was going to fix things once and for all.

Nearly 10 years have passed since Washington set out to redeem the greater Middle East. The crusades have not gone especially well. In fact, in the pursuit of its mission, the American messiah has pretty much worn itself out.

Today, the post-9/11 fever finally shows signs of abating, though the sickness has by no means passed. Oddly, it lingers most strongly in the Obama White House, where a keenness to express American ideals by dropping bombs persists.

Yet, despite the urges of some in the Obama administration, after nearly a decade of self-destructive flailing about, American recovery has become a distinct possibility. Here's some of the evidence:

In Washington, it's no longer considered a sin to question American omnipotence. Take the case of Robert Gates. The outgoing secretary of Defense certainly restored a modicum of competence and accountability to the Pentagon. But the most enduring Gates legacy is likely to be found in his willingness, however belated, to acknowledge the limits of American power.

No one can charge Gates with being an isolationist or a national security wimp. So when he says anyone proposing another major land war in the Middle East "should have his head examined" — citing the authority of Douglas MacArthur, no less — people take notice. Or more recently there is this. "I've got a military that's exhausted," Gates remarked. "Let's just finish the wars we're in and keep focused on that instead of signing up for other wars of choice." Someone should etch that into outer walls of the Pentagon's E-ring.

Half a dozen years ago, "wars of choice" were all the rage in Washington. No more. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Or consider the officer corps. There is no "military mind," but there are plenty of minds in the military, and some numbers of them are rethinking the role of military power.

Consider, for example, "Mr. Y," author of "A National Strategic Narrative," published this spring to considerable acclaim by the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The actual authors of this report are two military professionals, one a Navy captain, the other a Marine colonel.

What you won't find in this document are jingoist chest-thumping and calls for a bigger military budget. If there's an overarching theme, it's pragmatism. Rather than the United States imposing its will on the world, the authors want more attention paid to investment at home.

The world is too big and complicated for any one nation to call the shots, they insist. The effort to do so is self-defeating. "As Americans," Mr. Y writes, "we needn't seek the world's friendship or proselytize the virtues of our society. Neither do we seek to bully, intimidate, cajole or persuade others to accept our unique values or to share our national objectives. Rather, we will let others draw their own conclusions based upon our actions…. We will pursue our national interests and let others pursue theirs."

Advertisement
Los Angeles Times Articles
|
|
|