The Andrew Bacevich collection

[sullygoarmy]

I thought his PBS interview was spot on as well. It is time for people to realize that we are in a real bind when it comes to energy and our waning power throughout the world. It seems to me Bacevich pulls some ideas from Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts for some of his stuff. You could also say he pulls from Malcom Gladwell (Tipping Point) and some Joseph Nye (Soft Power) as well. That being said, he combines all these ideas with a believable pitch that doesn't come across like whining or bashing any one administration...a refreshing change.

[bourbon]

Prof. Bacevich is certainly a unique voice who suffers no fools and is indeed a refreshing voice in the current political discourse. I have had the privilege of taking an American Military history course with him, and consider it the most rewarding experience I have had in classroom. Not only intellectually stimulating, Prof. Bacevich's lessons have challenged me to be a better citizen and man.

Cavguy's selected quote is powerful, reading it conjures the same sulking sense of shame and dishonor for me as hearing it aloud. It's pretty hard to argue with. Sharp, concise, and packing a wallop. Will we ever hear Senator's McCain or Obama say such a thing? Or for that matter Al Franken or Rush Limbaugh? This is the tragedy.

[Ski]

I'll admit my bias up front.

I agree with literally everything that COL (Ret.) Bacevich talks about, and have for a long time.

We are overextended in literally every aspect of our national power.

Thanks for the link to Moyer's program.

[Granite_State]

I thought his PBS interview was spot on as well. It is time for people to realize that we are in a real bind when it comes to energy and our waning power throughout the world. It seems to me Bacevich pulls some ideas from Robert Kaplan's Imperial Grunts for some of his stuff.

Curious what you mean here. Bacevich seems to be politically a polar opposite to Kaplan, who's a poor man's (maybe a homeless man's) Kipling.

[sullygoarmy]

Granite,
Some of the comments that Bacevich said in his interview made me think of Kaplan's book. In his book, Kaplan goes and visits U.S. military members in some far off places; Mongolia is one example. He avoids the usual spots like Iraq and Afghanistan in this book and instead, focuses on the fringes of where the military is, conducting equally important jobs but without the media focus. Kaplan's thesis (in my interpretation) is the U.S. military is in fact an imperial force, spreading the values, cultures, messages and influences of the U.S. no matter where they go or what the job. From a military attace to an SF team in South America, every member of the U.S. military takes pieces of America with him or her. While we are not forcefully occupying terrority or enslaving a population, we bring a lot of "Soft Power" (to quote Joseph Nye) with us along with the obvious hard power. In fact, all of Kaplan's book focuses on the soft powers these "Imperial Grunts" bring with them.

Although Kaplan may be politically opposite to Bacevich, the two of them do share a healthy love of the U.S. military. Kaplan has spoken frequently at Fort Leavenworth and I've spoken with him both in person and over e-mail numerous times. Part of me gets the impression that he sees the military as a kindred spirit as him: wandering the globe into some of the worst places imaginable...and always having a story to tell once they return home to the U.S.

Let me know what you think.

[Steve Blair]

What I find fascinating about this is that so much of it is really not new. We're seeing the same sort of pressures on the military that we saw in the late 1800s and through about 1928 or so, although on a larger overall scale and with 'instant' coverage. Rhetoric aside, the American political body (and a fair percentage of the public) has always seen the military as a disposable asset. It's a fact of life in this country, and has been since the beginning. As a historian, Bacevich should understand this. Up until recently, the bulk of popular adoration was saved for the state volunteer or the wartime volunteer. It's an interesting study on its own.

[sullygoarmy]

It almost seems that we are in a cycle of how "Imperial" our military is. Late 19th/early 20th century, highly imperial. In the late 1920s and 1930s, we retract, mirroring our society and their unwillingness to get involved (or inability) with foreign affairs. Today's "flattened" world has greatly increased the U.S. involvement in global affairs, even more so from when the Cold War kept us physically out of nations within the Soviet sphere of influence. As a reflection of our society, our military is only as imperial as they are.