Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFarewell, the American Century
Rewriting the Past by Adding In What's Been Left Out
In a recent column, the Washington Post's Richard Cohen wrote, "What Henry Luce called 'the American Century' is over." Cohen is right. All that remains is to drive a stake through the heart of Luce's pernicious creation, lest it come back to life. This promises to take some doing.
When the Time-Life publisher coined his famous phrase, his intent was to prod his fellow citizens into action. Appearing in the February 7, 1941 issue of Life, his essay, "The American Century," hit the newsstands at a moment when the world was in the throes of a vast crisis. A war in Europe had gone disastrously awry. A second almost equally dangerous conflict was unfolding in the Far East. Aggressors were on the march.
With the fate of democracy hanging in the balance, Americans diddled. Luce urged them to get off the dime. More than that, he summoned them to "accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world... to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit."
Read today, Luce's essay, with its strange mix of chauvinism, religiosity, and bombast ("We must now undertake to be the Good Samaritan to the entire world..."), does not stand up well. Yet the phrase "American Century" stuck and has enjoyed a remarkable run. It stands in relation to the contemporary era much as "Victorian Age" does to the nineteenth century. In one pithy phrase, it captures (or at least seems to capture) the essence of some defining truth: America as alpha and omega, source of salvation and sustenance, vanguard of history, guiding spirit and inspiration for all humankind.
In its classic formulation, the central theme of the American Century has been one of righteousness overcoming evil. The United States (above all the U.S. military) made that triumph possible. When, having been given a final nudge on December 7, 1941, Americans finally accepted their duty to lead, they saved the world from successive diabolical totalitarianisms. In doing so, the U.S. not only preserved the possibility of human freedom but modeled what freedom ought to look like.
Thank You, Comrades
So goes the preferred narrative of the American Century, as recounted by its celebrants.
The problems with this account are two-fold. First, it claims for the United States excessive credit. Second, it excludes, ignores, or trivializes matters at odds with the triumphal story-line.
The
net effect is to perpetuate an array of illusions that, whatever their
value in prior decades, have long since outlived their usefulness. In
short, the persistence of this self-congratulatory account deprives
Americans of self-awareness, hindering our efforts to navigate the
treacherous waters in which the country finds itself at present.
Bluntly, we are perpetuating a mythic version of the past that never
even approximated reality and today has become downright malignant.
Although Richard Cohen may be right in declaring the American Century
over, the American people -- and especially the American political
class -- still remain in its thrall.
Constructing a past usable to the present requires a willingness to include much that the American Century leaves out.
For example, to the extent that the demolition of totalitarianism deserves to be seen as a prominent theme of contemporary history (and it does), the primary credit for that achievement surely belongs to the Soviet Union. When it came to defeating the Third Reich, the Soviets bore by far the preponderant burden, sustaining 65% of all Allied deaths in World War II.
By comparison, the United States suffered 2% of those losses, for which any American whose father or grandfather served in and survived that war should be saying: Thank you, Comrade Stalin.
For the United States to claim credit for destroying the Wehrmacht is the equivalent of Toyota claiming credit for inventing the automobile. We entered the game late and then shrewdly scooped up more than our fair share of the winnings. The true "Greatest Generation" is the one that willingly expended millions of their fellow Russians while killing millions of German soldiers.
Hard on the heels of World War II came the Cold War, during which erstwhile allies became rivals. Once again, after a decades-long struggle, the United States came out on top.
Yet in determining that outcome, the brilliance of American statesmen was far less important than the ineptitude of those who presided over the Kremlin. Ham-handed Soviet leaders so mismanaged their empire that it eventually imploded, permanently discrediting Marxism-Leninism as a plausible alternative to liberal democratic capitalism. The Soviet dragon managed to slay itself. So thank you, Comrades Malenkov, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Andropov, Chernenko, and Gorbachev.
Screwing the Pooch
What flag-wavers tend to leave out of their account of the American Century is not only the contributions of others, but the various missteps perpetrated by the United States -- missteps, it should be noted, that spawned many of the problems bedeviling us today.
The instances of folly and criminality bearing the label "made-in-Washington" may not rank up there with the Armenian genocide, the Bolshevik Revolution, the appeasement of Adolf Hitler, or the Holocaust, but they sure don't qualify as small change. To give them their due is necessarily to render the standard account of the American Century untenable.
Here are several examples, each one familiar, even if its implications for the problems we face today are studiously ignored:
Cuba. In 1898, the United States went to war with Spain for the proclaimed purpose of liberating the so-called Pearl of the Antilles. When that brief war ended, Washington reneged on its promise. If there actually has been an American Century, it begins here, with the U.S. government breaking a solemn commitment, while baldly insisting otherwise. By converting Cuba into a protectorate, the United States set in motion a long train of events leading eventually to the rise of Fidel Castro, the Bay of Pigs, Operation Mongoose, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even today's Guantanamo Bay prison camp. The line connecting these various developments may not be a straight one, given the many twists and turns along the way, but the dots do connect.
The Bomb. Nuclear weapons imperil our existence. Used on a large scale, they could destroy civilization itself. Even now, the prospect of a lesser power like North Korea or Iran acquiring nukes sends jitters around the world. American presidents -- Barack Obama is only the latest in a long line -- declare the abolition of these weapons to be an imperative. What they are less inclined to acknowledge is the role the United States played in afflicting humankind with this scourge.
The United States invented the bomb. The United States -- alone among members of the nuclear club -- actually employed it as a weapon of war. The U.S. led the way in defining nuclear-strike capacity as the benchmark of power in the postwar world, leaving other powers like the Soviet Union, Great Britain, France, and China scrambling to catch up. Today, the U.S. still maintains an enormous nuclear arsenal at the ready and adamantly refuses to commit itself to a no-first-use policy, even as it professes its horror at the prospect of some other nation doing as the United States itself has done.
Iran. Extending his hand to Tehran, President Obama has invited those who govern the Islamic republic to "unclench their fists." Yet to a considerable degree, those clenched fists are of our own making. For most Americans, the discovery of Iran dates from the time of the notorious hostage crisis of 1979-1981 when Iranian students occupied the U.S. embassy in Tehran, detained several dozen U.S. diplomats and military officers, and subjected the administration of Jimmy Carter to a 444-day-long lesson in abject humiliation.
For most Iranians, the story of U.S.-Iranian relations begins somewhat earlier. It starts in 1953, when CIA agents collaborated with their British counterparts to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and return the Shah of Iran to his throne. The plot succeeded. The Shah regained power. The Americans got oil, along with a lucrative market for exporting arms. The people of Iran pretty much got screwed. Freedom and democracy did not prosper. The antagonism that expressed itself in November 1979 with the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran was not entirely without cause.
Afghanistan. President Obama has wasted little time in making the Afghanistan War his own. Like his predecessor he vows to defeat the Taliban. Also like his predecessor he has yet to confront the role played by the United States in creating the Taliban in the first place. Washington once took pride in the success it enjoyed funneling arms and assistance to fundamentalist Afghans waging jihad against foreign occupiers. During the administrations of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, this was considered to represent the very acme of clever statecraft. U.S. support for the Afghan mujahideen caused the Soviets fits. Yet it also fed a cancer that, in time, exacted a most grievous toll on Americans themselves -- and has U.S. forces today bogged down in a seemingly endless war.
Watch the video
Act of Contrition
Had the United States acted otherwise, would Cuba have evolved into a stable and prosperous democracy, a beacon of hope for the rest of Latin America? Would the world have avoided the blight of nuclear weapons? Would Iran today be an ally of the United States, a beacon of liberalism in the Islamic world, rather than a charter member of the "axis of evil?" Would Afghanistan be a quiet, pastoral land at peace with its neighbors? No one, of course, can say what might have been. All we know for sure is that policies concocted in Washington by reputedly savvy statesmen now look exceedingly ill-advised.
What are we to make of these blunders? The temptation may be to avert our gaze, thereby preserving the reassuring tale of the American Century. We should avoid that temptation and take the opposite course, acknowledging openly, freely, and unabashedly where we have gone wrong. We should carve such acknowledgments into the face of a new monument smack in the middle of the Mall in Washington: We blew it. We screwed the pooch. We caught a case of the stupids. We got it ass-backwards.
Only through the exercise of candor might we avoid replicating such mistakes.
Indeed, we ought to apologize. When it comes to avoiding the repetition of sin, nothing works like abject contrition. We should, therefore, tell the people of Cuba that we are sorry for having made such a hash of U.S.-Cuban relations for so long. President Obama should speak on our behalf in asking the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki for forgiveness. He should express our deep collective regret to Iranians and Afghans for what past U.S. interventionism has wrought.
The United States should do these things without any expectations of reciprocity. Regardless of what U.S. officials may say or do, Castro won't fess up to having made his own share of mistakes. The Japanese won't liken Hiroshima to Pearl Harbor and call it a wash. Iran's mullahs and Afghanistan's jihadists won't be offering to a chastened Washington to let bygones be bygones.
No, we apologize to them, but for our own good -- to free ourselves from the accumulated conceits of the American Century and to acknowledge that the United States participated fully in the barbarism, folly, and tragedy that defines our time. For those sins, we must hold ourselves accountable.
To solve our problems requires that we see ourselves as we really are. And that requires shedding, once and for all, the illusions embodied in the American Century.
81 Comments so far
Show AllThe stupidest part of the American Century has been the willingness to take responsibility for all of the British Empire's aftermath.
They created Israel out of already-occupied Palestine, thus insulting the entire Muslim world. They sewed together three incompatible populations to create Iraq. They created the Durand line through the middle of the Pashtun homeland. They arbitrarily partitioned India, leading to a nuclear cold war on the subcontinent.
And we have done everything in our power to fan the flames in each conflict. We support Israel unquestioningly, to the point that Israel now thinks it can dictate our foreign policy to us. We overthrew local control of Iraq with no result other than the deaths of thousands of Americans and *hundreds* of thousands of Iraqis. We helped radicalize Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980's, and now try to stabilize Afghanistan while ignoring Pakistan.
As Bacevich says, taking an honest look at American (and British!) history might be the first step in pulling our heads out of our asses.
OODOODANOO
Thank you, well spoken to our heart of conscience and uplifting awareness and presence of perceptive consciousness.
The responsibility for such criminal manipulations that you clearly delineate is unbelievably reprehensible and wicked, with hundreds of millions dead and billions of people suffering -- just so those with the appearance of morality can get richer than imaginable.
America the cranially anally inverted country tis of thee,
besotted denial histrionically slapping others to their knees
Perhaps soon truth will be revealed
multitudinous injustices be cleared
Our forefather's home again revealed
True joyous celebrations we cheered
Namaste
Quoting myself:
"Nationalism ultimately is a form of mental illness that on the surface appears to have resilience but which is forever trying to adapt to its own shortcomings without recognizing that it should seek to exist."
Like Nixon, I misspoke. Nationalism should seek to annihilate itself. JFK's advisor, what's-his-name from Harvard with the bow-tie, was big on nationalism. Why? Because the masses are easily deluded by it. Meanwhile, decades ago, GE was conspiring to sell railroad engines to China. The transnational corporations---and of course this includes the TARP-bailed-out banks---have no national loyalties. Nationalism to them is just a factor to be reckoned with, or used to their advantage.
The so-called MSM LOVE Nationalism. It allows American presidents to identify "enemies" like the Axis of Evil, while covering up the probable fact that Germany, for example, our "ally," is not alone in having close business relations with Iran, for example, for decades. Also, e.g., where does Japan get most of its natural gas? Iran.
Get the picture? If you still don't get it, recite: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the Untied States of America,...for which it stands...untied."
Finally:
"What flag-wavers tend to leave out of their account of the American Century is not only the contributions of others, but the various missteps perpetrated by the United States -- missteps, it should be noted, that spawned many of the problems bedeviling us today."
Not mentioned as among these missteps is the failure to heed Jimmy Carter's admonition back around the late 70s that we ought to heed the implications of the OPEC oil embargoes and try to get off oil. Meanwhile, the United States really blew it after winning WWII, when Ike essentially capitulated to Military Keynesianism, did the Interstate Highway System, and like Wilson before him, declared his mistake. (Wilson was "contrite" about creating the Fed...)
The damage had already been done. In both cases, and we are the damage. We are The Hollow Men (and women). We are the Humans without "qualities." We are made manifest by the Media that long ago we should have shut out of our lives. But we listen and watch, seeking a consensus.
We revel in the Civil War that ostensibly created a consolidation. It did not. We really are idiots. We could have salvaged the world. Instead, we created suburbs.
-30-
"The instances of folly and criminality bearing the label "made-in-Washington" may not rank up there with the Armenian genocide, the Bolshevik Revolution, the appeasement of Adolf Hitler, or the Holocaust, but they sure don't qualify as small change."
What "Armenian genocide"? The Turks deny it and are in NATO while seeking membership in the EU. And in "Lawrence of Arabia" it was merely implied that Lawrence was screwed by a Turk (Ottoman) Officer. It could just as easily have been a broomhandle, like what cops in certain American cities are known for.
Nationalism ultimately is a form of mental illness that on the surface appears to have resilience but which is forever trying to adapt to its own shortcomings without recognizing that it should seek to exist.
-30-
Yes we know all this, but never have I seen it so badly expressed.
I really had trouble wading through the verbiage.
Sorry, but it was drivel.
A validation from an independent and conservative researcher is priceless,
and even more so considering his background in the military.
In the paradigmatic words of Larson E Whipsnade (president and general manager of Whipsnade's Circus Giganticus): "As my grandfather said before they sprung the trap: "never give a sucker an even break, or smarten up a chump."
I always thought that the American Century (100) refered to its average IQ...
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
The US only entered WW2 as it saw Japan as a future rival for resources. ( and was attacked by them...and possible knew of the attack in advance, but let it happen...shades of 911)
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
"...and possible knew of the attack in advance, but let it happen...shades of 911"
May I suggest the book "Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" by Robert Stinnett. Excellent book. Stinnett got access to a bunch of new documents made open by an FOIA request, and they clearly show first-hand accounts that the FDR government knew about - and purposefully goaded - Japan into invading Pearl Harbor.
And yes . . . very much early shades of 9/11.
Our nation is cracking, and through such cracks comes light.
Up until the economic collapse, the U.S. has been totally incapable of self-critique. This is true of all institutional systems. This is the evil in the air that is emitted from self-perpetuating systems. Institutional sin is where we must recognize the evil in the world. Right wing conservatives are hardly ever capable of questioning the system, as they are part of the unjust status quo.
This I have learned from the teachings of Franciscan Father Richard Rohr who critiques both the institutional church and the institutions of American Culture as well.
The great voices of the past, like Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have been dismissed by MSM as radical, having dared to go to the root of the problem.
Thank God we have new "moderate" voices like Andrew Bacevich emerging with the same core message, and considering current times, such voices should continue to grow exponentially.
Gee, I knew my eyesight was bad, but I really screwed up reading this! I thought 'Armenian' genocide read as 'American' genocide and was wondering whether he meant against the indigenous natives, or the American War against vietnam (Southeast Asia, in my book.)
As for the Russians - my paternal family left when Nicholas came to power, seeing the writing on the wall. There was no reasonable way to fix the Russian Empire - the peasants were ignorant, superstitious, illiterate, and despite Lenin, there indeed was a terrible purge of the old military, aristocracy, and intellectuals (that was my family, who left before the shit hit the fan) that devastated the country. Stalin made things worse by purging the military even after the Revolution (both paranoia and reality drove him to that), which is why Hitler had such an easy target, at first. If you think of Russia back then, try comparing it to Africa a couple hundred years ago - or any other non-industrial tribal society. It's really hard to bring them up to speed without killing millions, even if you don't do it on purpose. Stalin knew millions would die by trying to raise his country to industrial-age standards (I'm not defending the bastard) so I don't know that he was any better or worse than anyone else would have been. But no, Nicholas was not a person who could do it either - there were no good choices (why my family left). His father ran a police-state, but at least he wasn't crazy, stupid, or infatuated with a crazy woman.
I don't see why America (collectively) can't or won't apologize for past mistakes - and that's what they really were, since all human societies have suffered such madness, from time to time. It's just human frailty. The worst examples come about when there is a 'perfect storm' - maybe one of Sioux Rose's alignment of stars, for all I know - but it happens, and all too frequently. We just don't seem to be evolving - and haven't for some 10,000 years.
If 'confession is good for the soul' (I'm an atheist) then maybe that's exactly what America's soul needs - confession and a contrite apology. Now that would be leadership - but it takes a strong person to admit errors, and Americans seem to be generally pretty weak and insecure - you don't see them picking on anyone who could actually fight back, do you? This is a nation of cowards, pure and simple - frightened to death of a level playing-field. That's why USAns always try to figure out the 'Great Game' and get the upper hand (but rarely succeed - the chickens always come home to roost.)
It would be nice to see other 'conservatives' offering opinions and debating the ugly situation we face today. I'm sick and tired of the fascists - claiming to be conservatives - getting away with their stupid loud-mouth tactics. But I'll only believe this guy when he says stuff like this with a conservative in the White House...
Sioux Rose
ARMY BRAT: You're loosening up, and that's a good thing! Even Shakespeare, a Master, spoke compellingly of those alignments of stars! So astute of you to notice (lol).
By the way, am I the only one that feels the tone of condescension throughout this article? Its implied stance is that the US has the capacity to mold other nations--regardless of their particular cultural predilections--to suit our own bidding, i.e. to reflect our image and likeness. The presumption that this is a good thing, a valid thing, however its outcome evolves smacks of that same annoying jingoistic exceptionalism the author otherwise strains to transcend (if not apologize for).
Sioux Rose,
Bacevich is still a conservative, and makes no bones about that.
I listen to what he says and respect its source, while not agreeing with everything. He may not be Howard Zinn, but I think his heart is good and it's a start.
I, too, put the decimation of the native populations of the lands currently known as the United States at the top, as that set the tone for everything else...a closer look at the motivations behind the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary War, and the Constitution may yield surprises to the Average American, as well, as does any digging into the international efforts of the CIA...at what point leadership employs deception and secrecy to manipulate the citizenry may be difficult to determine, but knowing they are employed is not...
The individual must rise above national distinction...each individual must be, first a foremost, a citizen of this planet, and the stewardship of this planet, and the myriad peoples, animals and plants upon it, must be the paramount perspective...
Let us all share water, locally grown food, marijuana, music and sex, as we move into a new, agrarian life without industry or electricity...
Global Start Date: September 22, 2012...
"Let us all share water, locally grown food, marijuana, music and sex, as we move into a new, agrarian life without industry or electricity..."
Excellent post, Dubet. I am thinking we all need to start doing this well before your September 2012 date. I have been feeling for awhile now that compassion and sharing are the hallmarks of this new era we will be entering. The old ways of capitalistic competition, national pride, warfare and struggle for land and resources, and technology run amuck are already starting to crumble, and I think more and more people are beginning to feel this. Humanity is going through massive growing pains right now, and we all need to keep nudging this process forward, now.
Peace.
"righteousness overcoming evil?"
Humanity overcoming EGO is more to the point.
The poets and prophets have always spoken of dying to our EGO and being reborn as truly human.
Theologians have very often missed this point - it's bad for their business.
One's self and country is part of the whole - not the other way around.
Exactly, how Christians could miss the meaning of the crucifixion boggles the mind...Christ dying on the cross symbolizes the death of EGO and the 'resurrection' of something divine--a 'rebirth' into a new state of being, of consciousness. He did not die FOR their sins, but died to show them that they could transcend the sin nature (EGO).
Where in the world did you read that? I have read hte bible 5 times all the way through and Jesus clearly states he died for our sins but you are correct that he tought the abandament of our self intrests and think of others. As Jesus said we must pick up our cross daily and love others as our self, somthing very lacking today but he did die for our sins.
Dagger,
Try "The Course in Miracles" for a different take on Jesus.
It is more of an 'esoteric' interpretation, which recognizes that any higher teaching must be given in metaphor because it refers to states of consciousness, rather than something of a physical nature. Reading the bible for only its literal interpretation is worse that useless because it ultimately leads to nonsensical beliefs which lead to division, and sometimes to war. Worst of all, rigid adherence to an any belief prevents transcendence to the state it was meant to point. All we have of any past religion is a second hand account, which inevitably deviates from the original intent and meaning.
C H E S S G A M E S,
Very concise and well said. Thank you.
Namaste
You are most welcome, my friend. :-)
De nada, I am just an egg.
Unflattering as it is, sometimes 'my hairy butt' gets between my message and those I hope to awaken.
Sioux Rose
CHESS: Thank you for simplifying the key teaching that has largely been missed.
Thank you, Rose, and I thank the late Vernon Howard who revealed this in a talk called "The Higher Teachings of Christ," still available to those who might be interested:
http://www.anewlife.org/html/cassettes.html
This site contains many other jewels as well.
C H E S S G A M E S,
Well said.
I would add that perceiving the teachings as allegory, is crucial for understanding the bible's interwoven and deeper themes.
One must progress through several of the cruder obvious meanings ( milk / crawling ),
… before the embedded and esoteric ( ineffable even ) truths emerge ( meat / walking, running, flying … ).
¿ Who ever said it was going to be easy ( many are called but few are chosen ) ?
Literal meaning 'my hairy butt'.
Namaste
Excellently stated.
I concur with author but would argue that slavery and destruction of the indian civiliztion should at the very top of that list of "Missteps"
When it came to defeating the Third Reich, the Soviets bore by far the preponderant burden, sustaining 65% of all Allied deaths in World War II.
Even though WWII seems ancient history to many Americans, it is always important to remember that Nazi Germany lost the war in the Soviet Union. Eight out of ten Germans killed in the war died in the S.U. The defeat at Stalingrad, early in 1943, and the effective end of the U-boat war a few months later in May finished off the Nazis. By June 6, 1944 it really was effectively over. D-Day was not the great turning point of the war in Europe. Stalingrad was.
Mordechai, You nailed it!
And meanwhile, in the Pacific theatre, don't leave out the significance of the Battle of Midway. If the Japanese had sunk the remaining US carriers rather than Yammamato losing four of his own, the whole course and resolution of World War II in Asia could have been starkly different.
Sometimes history does turn on a dime, and then that's all she wrote.
Bill from Saginaw
"The American way of life is non-negotiable." --P42Bush
"We will not apologize for our way of life."--P44Obama
America is still in deep denial.
Clinton was P42. HW Bush was P41 and W Bush P43. Otherwise, the Big O wouldn't be P44.
q
Never say never.
They may eat those words, yet!
"In its classic formulation, the central theme of the American Century has been one of righteousness overcoming evil. The United States (above all the U.S. military) made that triumph possible."
What worries me is: What will become of the U.S. military with the death of this 'American Century'?
No, I'm afraid the end of American Exceptionalism will be bloody.
The U.S. American military will be reduced to a mere shadow of it's former self and my guess is that the Afghanistan gambit is designed for the sole purpose of eviscerating the current military. The only way to avoid a truly bloody end is to allow a break-up of the current U.S.
"The instances of folly and criminality bearing the label "made-in-Washington" may not rank up there with the Armenian genocide, the Bolshevik Revolution, the appeasement of Adolf Hitler, or the Holocaust, but they sure don't qualify as small change."
I basically like this article, but this is an incredibly dishonest statement. The number of lives lost in the Vietnam Genocide were several times those lost in the Armenian one, and the consequences infinitely worse. Heck, the death toll just from the Agent Orange and other poisons since then outranks Armenia. It's really frightening the extent to which Vietnam has been excised from the historical record, and beyond disgusting when professors of history and international relations do it. I guess it's not a crime when Democrats do it. I wonder if he even mentions Vietnam in his new book.
Mikep
Very well said. As a Vietnam veteran, I also am amazed at how quickly Americans seems to have erased the folly and horror of Vietnam from their memories. If Bacevich [who otherwise has written here a very fine and incisive article] does not mention Vietnam in his latest book, then one can look to John Prados as a way to ameliorate that error. Prados, in his recent magnum opus entitled Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975, examines in detail how the Vietnamese had to fight the Japanese and the French and then the United States before finally gaining their independence. Prados looks at America's involvement in that war [which was, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, never declared a war by Congress] politically, diplomatically, militarily. Sprinkled throughout the book are discussions about the antiwar movement [which now seems moribund vis a vis Afghanistan and Iraq] and the important role that the GI rebellion played during that time.
Also, in the article, Bacevich makes the important observation that the United States should finally apologize for what its foreign policy has wreaked throughout the years to so many countries. Unfortunately this sensible suggestion will probably never happen under the present administration as Barack Obama told a CNN correspondent last summer that he sees no reason why the Unite States should apologize in regards to its foreign policy, proving, apparently, that Obama is just as much of a believer in American exceptionalism as was his predecessor. It would also seem to prove that there is little change and/or substance emanating from the [alleged] agent of change.
Sioux Rose
ERROLL: I was friendly with John's sister and was curious of the year of publication of the "magnum opus" you recommend? I met John once at a family gathering and he was a very quiet, strange, distant man.
Sioux Rose
Prados's book, Vietnam: The History of an Unwinnable War, 1945-1975, is a fairly new book which came out just a few months ago. I am about half way through and find it to be one of the most comprehensive books in regards to the Vietnam war both from the perspective of the United States and how things unfolded inside the country of Vietnam. Unfortunately, it has only received negative reviews on amazon as it appears that the reviewers still cling to the misguided belief that the war that the U.S. conducted in Vietnam was somehow "winnable."
Mikep an Erroll, Excellent points from both of you.
Very, very nice thread. I, too, was immediately struck by Professor Bacevich's curious blind spot concerning Vietnam, in this otherwise very impressive essay debunking myths in the popular narrative of our rapidly waning American Century.
As a moderate conservatie career military man now transitioned into academe, Andrew Bacevich has written extensively, eloquently and with great insight elsewhere about the southeast Asian debacle, particularly in his fine book "The New American Militarism." Still, there is some myopia in play when we acknowledge the blowback and down side of arrogant American exceptionalism when it comes to Cuba, WWII, nuclear weapons, Iran, and Afghanistan, but somehow leave Vietnam unmentioned.
Also, it might be fitting to add to Professor Bacevich's list of America's 20th Century shortcomings the most recent bloody straw, the one which may still yet break the camel's back - the Bush/Cheney regime's open embrace of torture as official US government policy.
How could it happen that Luce's 1941 call for the United States to arise from isolationist slumber, as an alternative beacon of hope in the face of mindless militarism and police state totalitarianism, came to be turned completely upside down upon its head, by the end of the American Century? Courtesy of the post-9/11 global war on terror, fundamental international human rights norms like the Geneva Conventions and the Nuremburg principles were cynically subverted, and now are openly mocked in the US mainstream media, by many of our nation's highest recent political leaders.
I say add that one to the list of historical blips in Uncle Sam's grandiose global leadership narrative. You're setting the bar awfully low when the standard for moral comparison is Ausweicz.
Bill from Saginaw
It would be remiss not to point out that Vietnam is still to this day feeling the effects of America's militarism. As Nick Turse describes in the May issue of In These Times, "American bombs, artillery shells, rockets, landmines, grenades and other types of unexploded ordinance [UXO] litter Vietnam". Turse writes of how Vietnamese children would be attracted to the brightly colored bomblets from cluster bombs causing severe damage and death to those children and to other Vietnamese who would pick up those deadly weapons of mass destruction. These cluster bombs are also scattered around Afghanistan, and Iraq. Their effects are also felt in Serbia where the fighting has been over for almost twenty years.
Yet Obama still believes that America has nothing to apologize for. What Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967 still resonates quite accurately and loudly today: "The biggest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government."
'Yet Obama still believes that America has nothing to apologize for. What Martin Luther King Jr. said in 1967 still resonates quite accurately and loudly today: "The biggest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government."'
Well said.
errol: thanks for your service and your thoughtful posts
Ma g
I appreciate your kind words. But I must say, with absolutely no disrespect intended toward you at all, that I see no reason why I should be thanked for what I did as I contributed to the deaths of many innocent Vietnamese people. I have always found it very puzzling when people would thank me and other veterans for what we did [unless those particular veterans believed that the United States was right]. This, of course, is the same thing that Barack Obama and other presidents say regarding veterans which is that they thank them for their service and the sacrifices that they have done for their country. Veterans have days set aside for them such as Veterans Day and Memorial Day so that veterans can be honored. That always seems to be the key word that is thrown around, the word honor. I think a far better word that should be used on those days and also by American presidents is the word lament. By doing that, it would then mean that there is a thought behind why veterans should be remembered and especially that sorrow would be felt because those military personnel had to endure the unnecessary trauma that their government had put them through [such as the PTSD that I carry around with me]. To use the word sorrow connotes regret while the word honor means, according to one dictionary, "one whose worth brings respect or fame."
Not to belabor the point but I truly do not believe that unjustifiably invading and occupying other countries is a reason to believe that what a soldier did to those people should be somehow worthy of respect. On the contrary, I believe that those people who should be honored are those who belong to the VVAW-Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the IVAW [Iraq Veterans Against the War]. But it is extremely doubtful if there will be too many parades honoring these people or that Barack Obama or any other American president will single these courageous individuals for speaking out against American imperialism. I have a great deal of guilt and regret for not having spoken out when I was in the military in Vietnam and not realizing that former Green Beret Donald Duncan was certainly right when he stated [regarding his time in Vietnam] in the powerful documentary Sir! No Sir!:
"I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."
Erroll,
Thank you for this post.
You know, there is a reason why they ask you to "serve" when you are 18, and not when you are, let's say, 45.
i remember vietnam
i accept your comments as well
i don't want to glorify war either
you said it all: "I was doing it right but I wasn't doing right."
-Those are both fine posts, Erroll. Thanks.
This country may be ruined but not all of us are the culprits. If voters would actually pay attention to the issues more often than falling for stupid personality contests, our nation wouldn't be soiled by now. What this nation needs is for people to snap out of their pro-military mania and lighten up.
mr b is a smart guy who has served in the military, unlike bush, cheney, wolfowicz and the other neocons who have committed the military to the aggression in the middle east
he knows the price
unlike bush or cheney who don't give a fuck who else gets killed
especially your kids
don't mean shit to them
unlike fat boy limbaaahhh mr b also knows the value and the grace of saying your sorry when you are wrong
it is a christian contrition
let's all hope that when the chinese take over the planet, as they surely will, they have more grace and humanity than the corporations of america - who have none
let's hope the chinese don't invade nebraska on a pack of lies
let's hope the chinese don't slaughter millions of peasants for corporate profit
let's hope the chinese, when they are torturing american citizens, at least are men enough to admit they are torturing
when it becomes apparent to the sleeping sheeple that obama is a nwo shill (just ask kissinger) they will then accept their new found roles as peasants with all the grace of the africans
let's all sleep better knowing the rockefellers have gotten their equity out of the cancer stricken american economy thanks to the bail out
at least their congressmen and president know for whom it is they serve
The operative question is who or what will replace the American Century? China? India? Perhaps a region as a whole? The European Union? East Asia? Or is there a country or region lying in wait that next to no one has considered?
Why does there need to be any nations Century? That's the problem isn't it? Power centers raping the rest of the world. How about "Imagine there is no country...." I know, I'm just a dreamer, but someday...
Nice sentiment, but power abhors a vacuum.
True.
The tragedy of the commons lives on - at least, within this culture.
. . . but you're not the only one!
I agree wholeheartedly. Enough of this nation crap. Let's evolve beyond that ridiculous notion and envision something better.
Don't leave South America out of the calculation!
Until South America resolves its' inefficient land usage rates, has more than one generation of competent governance (incompetent governance is the region's historical bugaboo), & does something about its' rampant crony capitalism that makes the Bush error corporate partners drool, they deserve to be out of the calculation.
Perhaps there will be a single country or region replacing the US as the dominant force.
Or, perhaps the world might become more multipolar: China, India, the EU, Brazil, perhaps in alliance with some other Latin American nations, Russia, Indonesia in alliance with Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and the other ASEAN nations and possibly Australia, maybe South Africa.
No one considers Africa, with good reason one could certainly argue.
I would certainly discount Africa. Having recently spent one month earlier this year in Sub-Saharan Africa's leading state, South Africa, I can personally attest that is the remotest of possibilities.
Don't forget Shears' Law: There's always the unexpected.
I expected you to bring that up!
· Yr Obd't Servant
Farewell, the American Century
Good riddance. Don't come back.
"The instances of folly and criminality bearing the label 'made-in-Washington' may not rank up there with the Armenian genocide, the Bolshevik Revolution, the appeasement of Adolf Hitler, or the Holocaust, but they sure don't qualify as small change."
I think a glaring omission from this list is the Cultural Revolution in China. It not only left millions dead and caused China to regress scientifically, technically, economically, and culturally, but this attempt by Mao to hold onto power poisoned the communist revolution and the state he had helped create and ruined its chances to evolve into something healthy and beneficial for the Chinese people and humanity.
- I wonder why Bacevich included the Bolshevik Revolution on that list. Does he think things would've been better if the Tsar had stayed in power; or if Kerensky's Provisional Government had continued?
The Kerensky govt basically represented the idea that Russia should continue fighting WWI, & that it should subserviently accept its position as the economic appendage of dominant European powers -- something to be plundered by European capital, & exploited for its natural resources. The Russian people as a whole had no stake in WWI. They had nothing to gain from it, & much to lose. To the extent that he even gave the matter serious thought, the Tsar threw Russia into the war more because of his personal relationships to European heads of state, than because of any anticipated benefit for the Russian people (something he never thought or cared about).
The Bolsheviks were the only political grouping that offered the Russian people a way to get out of a war they hated & had no business being in; the only ones offering the peasants serious land reform; & the only ones offering a worker-led government. They were the only alternative seriously offering (pardon the expression) "hope and change." Russia was in desperate straits at that time. Why shouldn't they have taken a chance on this new socio-politcal form, at that time? They couldn't have known in October 1917 that the whole thing would devolve to Stalin's dictatorship. In 1917, the Bolshevik Revolution was a very exciting & attractive proposition for Russians. Plus, the power-seizure itself was accomplished with almost zero loss of life (not counting the subsequent Civil War, itself partly a product of the capitalist powers that encouraged & supported it).
It's blinkered & culturally egocentric for Americans to look at 1917 in Russia, & take the position in hindsight that Russians "should have" rejected the Bolsheviks. The argument for the Bolsheviks at that time was at least as good as the arguments for any of the alternatives. Surely we can't seriously argue today that Russians "should have" backed Kerensky in 1917, because that would have better served imperialist interests!
Dave Bronstein, Very good post! At least the professor is honest enough to mention what country did the most in defeating the monstrous Nazis, contrary to the Hollywood version of World War 11.
Good points. The inclusion bothered me too. And I am still not clear on why none of the acts constituting "criminality bearing the label 'made-in-Washington'" deserve to be on the list.
Bloviation.
As in blow-vine?
"Bloviation" !??
What a ridiculous comment. You seem to pretend to be reasonable so you can play with more sensible people than the morons on the right. But you have long ceased to fool me. You're a standard-issue, off-the-shelf red-neck, pretending to be more reasonable than the rest of your crowd.
The article is excellent and represents very reasonable, even gentle, criticism of what this country has done over the last century or so that is reprehensible. No, it doesn't mean that you hate your country to face its limitations with a bit of integrity and honesty. It's called decency and maturity.
We all have reasons to be _ D O U B T I N G __ Thomas
Yeah, I've fallen for Thomas' feints to the left also.
Be careful of those who smile while hiding their hand.
Getreal
Very well said.
Gee,Thomas, here I sought you out to say farewell and all I could find was this poor effort on your part. I will remember you doing far better than this.
I have stayed too long here and cannot continue to read the posts of the gruesome twosome, nor can I stand by silently while they assault others with no discernible decency. It has been a pleasure making your acquaintance Mr. More, and ,though we disagreed in the main, I think you a decent guy.
I would say farewell to many here, I hope they know who they are, and bid you all a continuation of the struggle to regain our nation.
Ardee, Red Rick, whats in a a name, a rose by any other........
doubldee,
I haven't had the opportunity to make your acquaintance, but want to wish you well. Every adieu deserves a bon-voyage.
Godspeed.
T. More seldom makes any sense. He can seem like a standard off-the-shelf liberal one day and a Fox "News" nincompoop the next.
Bloviation (LOL)! Not! Can you write anything better Thomas More?
What conciseness and erudition! Convincingly argued.
I would guess most CDers know all this and agree in general. Yet I don't think our nation is truly ready to apologize to anyone. The right-wingers would scream about blame-America-first crowd, and I suspect John Doe would tend to agree. Having a conservative like Bacevich write like this is a good step in what will hopefully be an ultimately more realistic view of America by Americans.
"The right-wingers would scream about blame-America-first crowd..."
Witness, Thomas More, resident right-winger. He doesn't scream, he just sticks in the shiv while speaking politely.
Bacevich is right. Of course, he's calling on us to do more than apologize. He's calling on us to stop being the assholes of the world and start living UP to the promise that so many have died for.