Every American needs to read this book, and read it soon. Bacevich, a retired Army Colonel and now History Prof in Boston, puts forth the case that we, the American people, have allowed our present economic, military and political status to come about through our own non-involvement and obsession with consumption at any price. It is a convincing argument and although I was somewhat dismayed that the conclusion settled for hopelessness with a touch of condescension, the book as a whole is a grand charge for change....and not change from DC...but changing our ways of living before we drown in our own profligacy. ( )

Interesting take on American policy ( )

Bacevich argues that from Reagan through Bush (and probably Obama though he was only a candidate when this was written), a consistent sense of American exceptionalism coupled with the belief that military power can solve all problems has disguised the real source of all of our international crises, which is that we are a shallow and profligate people, willing to accept the most venal lies as long as we have secure access to lots of cheap oil. I rate books more on the ideas they conjure up rather than whether or not I agree with them and in those terms I rate this highly. But use Kagan's Of Paradise and Power (or something similar) as a counter-weight.

Bacevich's book, which is dedicated to his soldier son killed in Iraq, argues that the U.S. is no longer a true republic, and that it is now governed by an “imperial presidency” and is “a de facto one-party state” in which a Congress marked by pervasive “corruption” is ruled by “an Incumbents’ Party” and politics is theater.

The “national security state,” Bacevich believes, is marked by failures: 1) to avert 9/11; 2) to bring to justice its architects; 3) to respond appropriately to Islamic extremism; 4) in the Iraq and Afghan wars.

Bacevich shows that George W. Bush did not break with past tradition, he has affirmed a long-standing ideology of national security informed by four convictions with deep roots in American history: 1) History has a purpose; 2) The U.S. embodies freedom; 3) American success is guaranteed by Providence; 4) Freedom must prevail everywhere for the American way of life to endure. This highly elastic ideology, now “hardwired into the American psyche,” serves chiefly to legitimate action of the American executive. The ideology serves the “self-selecting, self-perpetuating camarilla” [i.e. cabal]—a power élite of “hawks” in control of national security policy since WWII.

The gargantuan national security state shrouds itself in secrecy and lies. It has done “more harm than good.” The Bay of Pigs fiasco led Kennedy to realize that the system was out of control and he changed leadership, revamped institutions (McNamara, Bundy) and worked around the apparatus (e.g. did not use the NSC in the Cuban missile crisis, instead devising a small extra-constitutional group, an approach often replicated since). The actual institutions of the national security state undergo perpetual reform while those who hold power regard them as “not partners but competitors” and “the American people remain in the dark,” the apparatus remaining in place because it provides legitimacy for “political arrangements that are a source of status, influence, and considerable wealth.”

We should learn 1) “[T]he ideology of national security, American exceptionalism in its most baleful form, poses an insurmountable obstacle to sound policy”; 2) “Americans can no longer afford to underwrite a government that does not work”; 3) “To attend any longer to this elite would be madness . . . today’s Wise Men . . . have forfeited any further claim to trust." ( )

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. ( )

Bacevich argues that the U.S. can no longer be the world's watch-dog. Since World War II, our expanionist tendencies have overextended our political, economic and military systems. The author argues its time to draw the line with meddling overseas in areas where the threat to the U.S. is exaggerated. More attention is needed domestically to reduce our reliance on foreign energy sources, which in turn will make a significant impact on fixing some of our other issues. ( )

An anti-war conservative---nice! I'm just in the learning phase with all this stuff, so I can't pass judgment on the substance. At times the style is self-consciously anti-common-wisdom. Not sure what's up with his Christianity.

In less than 200 pages Bacevich attempts to describe what's wrong with the U.S. He's clearly a marketing genius, at least, since most of us can agree that something is indeed wrong, and therefore praise his book. However, it would take more than 200 pages to describe what's wrong in enough detail to suggest any solution or to avoid self-contradiction. In Bacevich's defense, it appears from the titles of his previous books that he has attempted to treat these issues in more detail. Also, he seems well-intentioned, and I was impressed with him on the Bill Moyer's show, so I hope to find time to read one of those other books some day. ( )

A fine examination of the problems in the dominant foreign policy paradigm of the U.S. Bacevich makes a fascinating connection between our culture of conspicuous consumption and the rise of militarism/imperialism--including a fine job of challenging the conservative assumptions about Reagan. ( )

I picked up this book after seeing the author’s interview with Bill Moyers, and was not disappointed. Bacevich points out how America shifted from being centered around production to being centered around consumption, and how this has led us into trouble since the 1970s. Since that time, the nation has passed increasingly into a realm of delusion, believing that the rules that apply to other countries cannot constrain the United States. Too many of our leaders have succumbed to the notion that we can remake other countries to order, and put our military in the hot seat to accomplish their goals. All our technological advantages cannot make war into an easy, predictable phenomenon, nor is war able to remake other societies, nor is war able to function as a preventive measure. His solutions will not be palatable, but they are the only realistic ones: scale back foreign policy to achievable goals, and reduce consumption to match production. ( )

An excellent book by a highly qualified former military man who chooses and weighs each word he writes.

It should be required reading for all Americans.

I have read it only twice but need to study it more.

It is a gift in that he unravels and pulls back the curtains on so very much that has happened to this country.

(Bill Moyers interviewed and extols the virtues of this man.) ( )

This is a good book that people should read if they are interested in a critical outline of the US foreign policy.

The author is not afraid to show his positions right in the first lines, so don't expect a journalistic review of happenings or a scientific listing of evidences. The author wants to make a point: that the US foreign policy has been running to the wrong direction for a long time and the recent screw ups (Afghanistan and Iraq wars) are a continuation of what's being done for a few generations.

The basic argument is that the ideology of freedom has lead to exaggerated consumerism by the american people and to a feeling of "more is better". Since the US is not self sufficient in oil and other goods, it has been acting as an expansionist empire in order to sustain the "american way of life", specially since the post-WW2 golden era.

Bacevich discusses many bad consequences of the "global dominance" policy and makes one prediction: that this will end up badly for the US and its citizens.

Now, while I like reading a book where the author has strong convictions, I take them with a grain of salt. He makes many bold statements, like predicting how the future will look like, but without mentioning historical evidence or references to explain why.

As a history professor, he could have made use of stronger historical references to illustrate his argument that the "more is better" behavior and the consumerism are bad things in the long run. At the same time, he found time to discuss less important issues, like the psychological profile and personality of Paul Wolfowitz. I'm not saying I was expecting a scientific thesis, but that he just didn't convince me.

Andrew Bacevich says things look bad and will get worse, and not just from a military point of view. The "more is better" can't work in the long run, he says.

But one could argue that from a historical perspective the US economy is still in a very good shape. Also, moral and ecological issues aside, the strategy of acting as an expansionist empire is proven to be very successful, unfortunately, at least for some time. Even for several decades or centuries! I missed a more detailed discussion of this particular subject.

So if you want to see what's wrong with the US military operations and its foreign policy, you should read this book. It discusses many issues that are just plain wrong in the US, so it's really interesting (although the author doesn't always cite his sources or references, specially not for the White House tales, which really bothered me).

But whoever liked this book and would like to jump to something more dense, those should read "Tout empire périra" by Jean-Baptiste Duroselle. It describes a remarkable theory of how international empires are created, how they expand and why they always disappear. - A quick look at Amazon.com doesn't show any translation to English, but you may want to search again. It's really worth it. I read the Brazilian Portuguese version 6 years ago at the university - when the US was still an unquestionable hegemon - and it's still one of my preferred books of International Relations. ( )

It is rare to find a book that preaches without pretentiousness, warns without hyperbole, and makes evangelicals and acolytes out of its readers.

Here is a book I don't want to simply own, it's a book I want to carry and quote from; I want to share, give away, and discuss.

I think of books like Marx's Das Capital, Weber's Economy and Society, Smith's the Wealth of Nations, Wilberforce's Abolition of the Slave Trade, and Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman.

This book belongs on a small shelf of books with the possibility of shifting the way we both think and act. ( )

You should read it.