Sebastien's Reviews > The Violent American Century: War and Terror Since World War II

Excellent critique of post WWII US military foreign policy. The collection of essays is slight, but the critique is presented in a clear, concise, incisive manner with a well-executed economy of style; every sentence adds to the overall argument.

First off, when I critique US military policy (and I am very critical in a general sense) I think there are a few things to note about arguments on its (potential) benefits.

One, it provides a massive amount of jobs and an avenue for people who may have few opportunities to climb the economic ladder. But in a way this can be critiqued, because if military is the only avenue for some to climb the economic ladder then I see that as an indictment of the rest of the system/economy and the lack of opportunities it is presenting for wide swathes of the populace.

Secondly, investment in military generates tons of spin-off technologies/innovations. Sadly, war and threat of war are great incentives for innovation. You could argue that we could still make massive investments in science and technology at the (non-military) government level and reap major benefits (in fact we do, but are actually underinvesting in this arena imo). But there is no getting around the spin-off tech benefits of military science/tech investment. One can question efficiency of use of resources though, that is a major problem with our special-interests captured war machine.

Thirdly, yes there is benefit to be derived from projecting hard power and trying to contain what are considered security threats. But there is also blowback in various ways as well. You conduct yourself like an imperial empire you will extract certain benefits, but also end up stoking certain negative consequences as well; the underlying resentment, hate, anger can manifest and explode in variety of ways.

Anyways, with that out of the way, here is the crux of John Dower's argument:

US military policy in the post-world war II era has been a source of great pain and instability in the world. We have misused our power, often chasing ghosts and fighting ideologies with the most despicable of techniques and in the process manifested a staggering level of hypocrisy. There have been massive violations in terms of human rights, egregious wastage and inefficiency with the war machine/military industrial complex growing and growing and always needing more and more resources, and the growth of the surveillance state has involved massive infringements upon civil society. And for a country not involved in a major conflict (although this point is debatable, we are in perpetual war mode and conducting armed operations to one degree or another in sooo many theaters) we are pouring trillions of dollars into the perpetual, inefficient, bloated, special-interests captured Keynesian funded operation that is our imperial war machine. Is this sustainable? Not to me it isn't, not in the long term.

There are some great essays, including ones that examine how the military-industrial complex derives funding, namely through the exploitation of fear in the public realm (back in the day invoking "communism," and now the new forever war that gets the dollars flowing is the Great War on Terror). This line sums it up:

"Fear of ominous existential enemies primed the political pump to maintain support for a massive military machine."

I tend to think that some military interventions can be warranted, but when you are overly focused on using military as spearhead against ideologies you are probably going to metastasize the original cancers if you aren't smart about things (this too often includes having basically zippo understanding of regional history/nuances, but rushing like a bull into the china shop anyways because hubris). In too many cases we've poured gasoline onto the original fires. Another important note that Dower documents and critiques: be careful of the bedfellows you choose and support. Dower's examination of CIA history is particularly damning. You can preach freedom, liberty, democracy, human rights as much as you want, but as one often sees these terms are weaponized and used to camouflage the dark underbelly of our actions and belie a serious double standard/hypocrisy. Actions speak louder than words, and the record is appalling.

There were several essays on nuclear weapons and nuclear policy. Very highly critical of the "delicate balance of terror" thinking that dominated policy circles, including cavalier attitudes of nuclear brinksmanship and provocation. Here are a few excerpts:

"Predicatably absent from the most of these alarming prognostications was the fact that US nuclear policy itself was and remains a major provocation in the atomic arc of instability... The ceaseless US quest to maintain massive "technological asymmetry" militarily is guaranteed to keep arms races of every sort going."

What is interesting are the sources and policy experts that did a 180 from the old school nuclear brinksmanship/delicate balance of terror policy. My god this even includes Kissinger! I'm not a fan of Kissinger but it was interesting to see him, the hardest coldest cruelist realist in the game, embrace the "Global Zero" concept for nuclear weapons.

One final note on the concept of American exceptionalism:

"The mystique of exceptional virtue does not accommodate serious consideration of irresponsibility, provocation, intoxication with brute force, paranoia, hubris, reckless and criminal activities, or even criminal negligence."

This quote is important for me because it encompasses the main problems with the concept of American exceptionalism. Such a concept allows a double standard whereby we sidestep accountability and responsibility because we are supposedly operating in a framework of higher virtue; we cannot be held to the common international standards and rules because of our very exceptionalism. It is sneaky and dangerous, and ends up being a slippery-slope into permitting ourselves anything. We do not abide critique and analysis of our actions because of our very exceptionalism, such critique is often not tolerated and thus precludes serious honest dialogue about our policies. We invoke liberty, democracy, freedom, wrapped into the concept of American exceptionalism, but as so often happens this invocation gives us carte-blanche and permits us anything, even the most extraordinary actions/crimes that literally go against these basic concepts which we supposedly champion. It is disingenuous and the deep hypocrisy seriously damages our credibility. Ultimately it is very counter-productive, hurts a lot of people, and provides ammunition (ideological propaganda) to our enemies.

PS. This is a good article by military historian Andrew Bacevich that asks hard-hitting questions of the military establishment and political leaders. Takes contemporary media establishment to ask, fully justified imo. Mirrors much of Dower's critique: http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/176277/