alonovo.com (beta 2.0)

Not what you may expect 2009-10-16

Reviewer: Maestro

This book does agood job at dissecting the reason why we Americans are so easily seduced by war and the use of force but if you expect quick, Bush bashing rhetoric.....forget it. This a thoughtful, complex look at our foreign policy and even the author admits that his account is biased toward his career in the military but have patience . Be prepared to work to familiarize yourself with complexities in strategic thinking, foreign policy, domestic policy and the coordination of those three areas .I have gotten about half way through but already am pleasantly surprised in being challenged in ways I did not expect. Enjoy

Maestro

Compelling and unique ideas about the American psyche 2009-09-07

Reviewer: 1000Books

Bacevich's work is a compelling argument American Militarism. It does a good job of showing how the "Militarism" which is taken for granted as "the way it is" is actually an oddity given the history of this nation and its founding forefathers.

Some notes:
1) Weinburger Doctrine - Specified tests as preconditions for putting American troops in harms way. He would have this test be put toward all military action post-cold war in the middle east
2) The thematic of War as ugly or as a last resort vs pre-emptive war. In chapter three he speaks about one of the latter's larger advocates Norman Podhoretz's 6 neo-conservatives truths
- Evil is real
- For evil to prevail, those confronted by it must be flinching from duty. (Suggests that Hilter's legacy is a permanent standing army in the US).
- America must alone be the global leader.
- There is a relationship between stability at home and abroad (i.e. in this regard, he was reacting against the civil rights movement during his time).
- Felt a crisis existed post-Vietnam for which the US must take action (i.e. the loss showed a failure in leadership and the US needed to re-establish it's military might).
- The antidote to crisis is leadership. (i.e. Reagan, etc...)
3) In Chapter 3: California Dreaming, he discusses how popular press has changed since WW2 from being anti-war to pro-military making claims that the film industry played a major role through movies which romanticized war.
4) Discusses oil issues which have served to justify and frustrate those who would lobby to take more conservative action. Hints at the close relationship between oil, economy, and US prosperity. Suggests that Carter may have missed it by thinking that the US would be ok, with belt tightening.

In the context of a new president who portends a divergence from the Bush adminstration, this book begs a number of questions. How do we think about President Obama's recent activity in the middle east? Does it look like his policies will fall in line with the past? While the author feels that no president since Reagan has been particularly good at reducing oil dependence, are there potentially seeds of change that have been planted?

Why so little has changed 2009-05-30

Reviewer: bjcefola

This is a great book and I heartily recommend it. Bacevich describes himself as a conservative critic of the Iraq invasion, which he sees as resulting from the institutionalization of militarism within American society. The book pointedly avoids blaming Bush or administration officials, instead looking at a series of broad cultural dynamics, both civilian and military. These include briefly,

* Conservative christians, who adopted a siege mentality in the wake of the cultural changes in the 60's.
* The idolization of the military in the 80's and 90's, in a generational reaction against perceived injustices in the 70's.
* The development of smart weapons and the broader separation of military and civilian society, which made "clean" war seem like a possibility.

This resolves a problem I had with an earlier work, American Empire. There he argued for a fundamental continuity between the Clinton and Bush administrations, which I didn't buy. The discussion here implies a continuity of circumstance more then in the actions and initiatives of the presidents, and Bacevich states in the preface that presidents should be understood as being shaped by history rather then the other way around. This doesn't exonerate Bush and it isn't offered as such, but it does situate Bush's actions within a broader cultural context and explains why his decisions were so popular at the time.

Bacevich at the end offers a surprising reinterpretation of the last 30 years, where he adopts the neocon lingo of World War IV with a twist: instead of radical Islam waging war against a sleepy Western world he sees America fighting for political dominance of the broader Middle East, in a continuation of the western tradition going back to Alexander the Great. This idea is offered as a sketch, and I'd like to see him use another book to flesh it out.

This is good stuff with continuing relevance, particularly for those confused by why so little has changed under Obama.

Makes many valid points about America's desire for war 2009-03-13

Reviewer: Michael D. Chlanda

This book, although written by a Conservative, gives plenty to think about, by Liberals, Moderates, and Conservatives. Mr. Bacevich lays out the uses and abuses of military power, by the civilian leadership, over the last 20+ years, and does so with skill. He makes many valid points, including, how Congress has abdicated its responsibility, to declare war; based on the notion of supporting the "commander in chief" (i.e., The President). He also lays out a course of action that should involve using war as a last resort. He does not say that America shouldn't defend itself, but use war more effectively. While one might not agree with all of his ideas, he provides more thought out strategy (something the previous administration especially did not do, when going to war, and which has partly [partially] led to our current problems.) Worth a look.

Great book, but... 2008-12-12

Reviewer: Hugo A. Castro Fonseca

For a foreigner (Colombian), who went to engineering school and lived in the US for five years, enjoying american life style and many personal friendships, the book is well intentioned. Basically, there never will be "victory" for the US in Irak, but the entrenched garrison within the green zone will permit continuity of the exploitation of Irak's natural resource, oil, on a compulsary basis. Changing oil for blood is a sad fact, and the ratio of american casualties (a few thousand), to civil iraqui casualties (at leat a million), is regrettable and shameful, not fair. Another salient case of national BAD KARMA for the US. HC