I read this book based on its title, and wish that I had not taken the time. The book is actually a collection of impressions that combine into an anti-war diatribe. Its subtitle the End of American Exceptionalism is also misleading. In Bacevich’s view, that exceptionalism was described by Reagan’s “City on a Hill” and if it existed it has vanished along with America’s status as a superpower.

He grabs pieces of history, some of Niebuhr’s views, and his own anti-war bitterness into an attack of the national security apparatus. Years ago, Eisenhower’s farewell warning about the military-industrial complex was a much shorter and more coherent statement of the same position.

My half-star rating is simply because there is no lower value. Unless you love attacks on America, avoid the book. ( )

Bacevich is clearly angry. He's angry that the lives of young patriotic men like Pat Tilman and his own son have been wasted on poorly-thought-out wars that don't further American interests. Unlike most political scientists, he himself is a veteran (Vietnam and Iraq) who reached the rank of colonel, so he is not intimidated by the prospect of engaging with the arguments of military and defense department officials, and these are the most successful and convincing parts of the book. He shows that without compulsory national service (a draft) the U.S. cannot sustain long wars, but without talented leadership, the military is not capable of waging small, smart wars (he treats Tommy Franks as almost beneath contempt, and most of the other generals don't fare much better). This unfortunately leaves him regretting that to save the nation, we have to stop waging war, especially so-called "preventive war." The book covers a lot of bases, starting with a criticism of American consumerism (which, due to its unthinking reliance on oil, holds our foreign policy hostage to our greed) and our culture ("vulgar and soft") and then moving on to the imperial presidency and finally to an excoriation of the American military and political leadership, which he feels has been in a downward spiral since Forrestal. Not heavily academic, the book is written for the educated lay reader, and the prose is readable and quotable--although its "bold" tone is clearly thought by some to detract from the work. ( )

This is an odd, quirky book with several interesting points that is ultimately disappointing with a lack of support and credibility. As a part of the American Empire Project (www.americanempireproject.com) he is uniquely qualified as an exponent of a particularly relevant perspective, in addition to his military experience, but the book is weakly argued. He dismisses the largely successful military strategy of General Petraeus in only two paragraphs in the book (p. 151) and he only refers to him briefly in one other note. The counter-insurgency re-writing of American military doctrine as a result received short shrift.

Also, Obama is analyzed correctly as a wanna-be American leader with "sketchy foreign policy credentials" who "unhesitatingly ripped a page out of the Clinton playbook" (p. 79) only to deliver a comforting American electoral narrative as have all American presidents since WW II. Written previous to the disastrous beginning of Obama' presidency, Bacevich correctly points out that no one is about to fundamentally change Washington and it is business as usual (p. 170 ff). The American people do not seek out engagement and citizen participation which would focus our nation on what we can and can not accomplish given the limits of our power.

Bacevich also idiosyncratically and inconsistently invokes Protestant theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as relevant to his argument. His grasp of Niebuhr though is sketchy at best and nowhere does he convincingly quote him to support his points.

Bacevich seems to have published an interesting first draft that has not argued persuasively and comprehensibly enough to be convincing. He is more like a guerilla writer who bobs and weaves, makes a point, and then frustratingly runs away from convincing readers of his salient points.

This is perhaps the most important and most perceptive book I have ever read. It gives a brief analysis of American security policy since 1947 and why it went so badly wrong under George W. Bush. The book was written before the present economic collapse, but that collapse is entirely in keeping with the author's analysis and makes his prescriptions for security even more important. Here is an author who respects the military but understands its limitations in a sophisticated way. Probably the most realistic book I've read in 45 years. ( )

Eschew foreign entanglements. Beware the military industrial complex. Stop being fat, lazy, and greedy. All good pieces of advice. But how many times can you repeat them before they become "turn down that noise you call music" and "hey you kids, get off my lawn?"

Bacevich seems determined to find out. For 176 pages, he creates a catalog of ways, small and large, in which American society and (mostly) politics is fatally flawed. Only in the last 6 pages of the book does he bother to suggest concrete strategies that might make things better.

It's worth pointing out that I think Bacevich is right about an awful lot of this analysis. But at the end of the day, he has almost no point but hectoring, negative criticism. ( )