Current US strategy is based on maintaining superpower status, and is leading Americans into useless conflicts
I noted that the author's son was killed in Iraq, perhaps contributing to the strident tone of the book. Nonetheless, I think his analysis is very accurate. The US, after the black lives matter movement and 1619 project, can no longer justify a moral stance of encouraging liberty throughout the world. Bacevich's recommendation is to join with Canada and Mexico to defend the North American continent, and to stop interfering militarily with the mideast, Africa, southeast Asia and elsewhere. He exempts the Pacific, where he sees China as a potential adversary. He would shift funding from the Navy to the Coast Guard, and stop nuclear weapon modernization. He would spend more on social issues and health care. He is unsparing about the mistakes of the US national security experts, secretaries of state, and Presidents, since the end of the cold war. He maintains that America has an empire, and has bungled its management

"The handbook on "Effective Imperial Management" consists of three basic tenets: First: Don't invade Russia. Second: Share costs. Third: Repatriate the benefits."
(p 131) ( )

Review of: After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in the World Transformed,
by Andrew Bacevich
by Stan Prager (10-4-22)

I often suffer pangs of guilt when a volume received through an early reviewer program languishes on the shelf unread for an extended period. Such was the case with the “Advanced Reader’s Edition” of After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in the World Transformed, by Andrew Bacevich, that arrived in August 2021 and sat forsaken for an entire year until it finally fell off the top of my TBR (To-Be-Read) list and onto my lap. While hardly deliberate, my delay was no doubt neglectful. But sometimes neglect can foster unexpected opportunities for evaluation. More on that later.
First, a little about Andrew Bacevich. A West Point graduate and platoon leader in Vietnam 1970-71, he went on to an army career that spanned twenty-three years, including the Gulf War, retiring with the rank of Colonel. (It is said his early retirement was due to being passed over for promotion after taking responsibility for an accidental explosion at a camp he commanded in Kuwait.) He later became an academic, Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University, and one-time director of its Center for International Relations (1998-2005). He is now president and co-founder of the bipartisan think-tank, the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Deeply influenced by the theologian and ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, Bacevich was once tagged as a conservative Catholic historian, but he defies simple categorization, most often serving as an unlikely voice in the wilderness decrying America’s “endless wars.” He has been a vocal, longtime critic of George W. Bush’s doctrine of preventative war, most prominently manifested in the Iraqi conflict, which he has rightly termed a “catastrophic failure.” He has also denounced the conceit of “American Exceptionalism,” and chillingly notes that the reliance on an all-volunteer military force translates into the ongoing, almost anonymous sacrifice of our men and women for a nation that largely has no skin in the game. His own son, a young army lieutenant, was killed in Iraq in 2007. I have previously read three other Bacevich works. As I noted in a review of one of these, his resumé attaches to Bacevich either enormous credibility or an axe to grind, or perhaps both. Still, as a scholar and gifted writer, he tends to be well worth the read.
The “apocalypse” central to the title of this book takes aim at the chaos that engulfed 2020, spawned by the sum total of the “toxic and divisive” Trump presidency, the increasing death toll of the pandemic, an economy in free fall, mass demonstrations by Black Lives Matter proponents seeking long-denied social justice, and rapidly spreading wildfires that dramatically underscored the looming catastrophe of global climate change. [p.1-3] Bacevich takes this armload of calamities as a flashing red signal that the country is not only headed in the wrong direction, but likely off a kind of cliff if we do not immediately take stock and change course. He draws odd parallels with the 1940 collapse of the French army under the Nazi onslaught, which—echoing French historian Marc Bloch—he lays to “utter incompetence” and “a failure of leadership” at the very top. [p.xiv] This then serves as a head-scratching segue into a long-winded polemic on national security and foreign policy that recycles familiar Bacevich themes but offers little in the way of fresh analysis. This trajectory strikes as especially incongruent given that the specific litany of woes besetting the nation that populate his opening narrative have—rarely indeed for the United States—almost nothing to do with the military or foreign affairs.
If ever history was to manufacture an example of a failure of leadership, of course, it would be hard-pressed to come up with a better model than Donald Trump, who drowned out the noise of a series of mounting crises with a deafening roar of self-serving, hateful rhetoric directed at enemies real and imaginary, deliberately ignoring the threat of both coronavirus and climate change, while stoking racial tensions. Bacevich gives him his due, noting that his “ascent to the White House exposed gaping flaws in the American political system, his manifest contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law placing in jeopardy our democratic traditions.” [p.2] But while he hardly masks his contempt for Trump, Bacevich makes plain that there’s plenty of blame to go around for political elites in both parties, and he takes no prisoners, landing a series of blows on George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and a host of other members of the Washington establishment that he holds accountable for fostering and maintaining the global post-Cold War “American Empire” responsible for the “endless wars” that he has long condemned. He credits Trump for urging a retreat from alliances and engagements, but faults the selfish motives of an “America First” predicated on isolationism. Bacevich instead envisions a more positive role for the United States in the international arena—one with its sword permanently sheathed.
All this is heady stuff, and regardless of your politics many readers will find themselves nodding their heads as Bacevich makes his case, outlining the many wrongheaded policy endeavors championed by Republicans and Democrats alike for a wobbly superpower clinging to an outdated and increasingly irrelevant sense of national identity that fails to align with the global realities of the twenty-first century. But then, as Bacevich looks to the future for alternatives, as he seeks to map out on paper the next new world order, he stumbles, and stumbles badly, something only truly evident in retrospect when viewing his point of view through the prism of the events that followed the release of After the Apocalypse in June 2021.
Bacevich has little to add here to his longstanding condemnation of the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan, which after two long decades of failed attempts at nation-building came to an end with our messy withdrawal in August 2021, just shortly after this book’s publication. President Biden was pilloried for the chaotic retreat, but while his administration could rightly be held to account for a failure to prepare for the worst, the elephant in that room in the Kabul airport where the ISIS-K suicide bomber blew himself up was certainly former president Trump, who brokered the deal to return Afghanistan to Taliban control. Biden, who plummeted in the polls due to outcomes he could do little to control, was disparaged much the same way Obama once was when he was held to blame for the subsequent turmoil in Iraq after effecting the withdrawal of U.S. forces agreed to by his predecessor, G.W. Bush. Once again, history rhymes. But the more salient point for those of us who share, as I do, Bacevich’s anti-imperialism, is that getting out is ever more difficult than going in.
But Bacevich has a great deal to say in After the Apocalypse about NATO, an alliance rooted in a past-tense Cold War stand-off that he pronounces counterproductive and obsolete. Bacevich disputes the long-held mythology of the so-called “West,” an artificial “sentiment” that has the United States and European nations bound together with common values of liberty, human rights, and democracy. Like Trump—who likely would have acted upon this had he been reelected—Bacevich calls for an end to US involvement with NATO. The United States and Europe have embarked on “divergent paths,” he argues, and that is as it should be. The Cold War is over. Relations with Russia and China are frosty, but entanglement in an alliance like NATO only fosters acrimony and fails to appropriately adapt our nation to the realities of the new millennium.
It is an interesting if academic argument that was abruptly crushed under the weight of the treads of Russian tanks in the premeditated invasion of Ukraine February 24, 2022. If some denied the echo of Hitler’s 1938 Austrian Anschluss to Putin’s 2014 annexation of Crimea, there was no mistaking the similarity of unprovoked attacks on Kiev and sister cities to the Nazi war machine’s march on Poland in 1939. And yes, when Biden and French President Emmanuel Macron stood together to unite that so-called West against Russian belligerence, the memory of France’s 1940 defeat was hardly out of mind. All of a sudden, NATO became less a theoretical construct and somewhat more of a safe haven against brutal militarism, wanton aggression, and the unapologetic war crimes that livestream on twenty-first century social media of streets littered with the bodies of civilians, many of them children. All of a sudden, NATO is pretty goddamned relevant.
In all this, you could rightly argue against the wrong turns made after the dissolution of the USSR, of the failure of the West to allocate appropriate economic support for the heirs of the former Soviet Union, of how a pattern of NATO expansion both isolated and antagonized Russia. But there remains no legitimate defense for Putin’s attempt to invade, besiege, and absorb a weaker neighbor—or at least a neighbor he perceived to be weaker, a misstep that could lead to his own undoing. Either way, the institution we call NATO turned out to be something to celebrate rather than deprecate. The fact that it is working exactly the way it was designed to work could turn out to be the real road map to the new world order that emerges in the aftermath of this crisis. We can only imagine the horrific alternatives had Trump won re-election: the U.S. out of NATO, Europe divided, Ukraine overrun and annexed, and perhaps even Putin feted at a White House dinner. So far, without firing a shot, NATO has not only saved Ukraine; arguably, it has saved the world as we know it, a world that extends well beyond whatever we might want to consider the “West.”
As much as I respect Bacevich and admire his scholarship, his informed appraisal of our current foreign policy realities has turned out to be entirely incorrect. Yes, the United States should rein in the American Empire. Yes, we should turn away from imperialist tendencies. Yes, we should focus our defense budget solely on defense, not aggression, resisting the urge to try to remake the world in our own image for either altruism or advantage. But at the same time, we must be mindful—like other empires in the past—that retreat can create vacuums, and we must be ever vigilant of what kinds of powers may fill those vacuums. Because we can grow and evolve into a better nation, a better people, but that evolution may not be contagious to our adversaries. Because getting out remains ever more difficult than going in.
Finally, a word about the use of the term “apocalypse,” a characterization that is bandied about a bit too frequently these days. 2020 was a pretty bad year, indeed, but it was hardly apocalyptic. Not even close. Despite the twin horrors of Trump and the pandemic, we have had other years that were far worse. Think 1812, when the British burned Washington and sent the president fleeing for his life. And 1862, with tens of thousands already lying dead on Civil War battlefields as the Union army suffered a series of reverses. And 1942, still in the throes of economic depression, with Germany and Japan lined up against us. And 1968, marked by riots and assassinations, when it truly seemed that the nation was unraveling from within. Going forward, climate change may certainly breed apocalypse. So might a cornered Putin, equipped with an arsenal of nuclear weapons and diminishing options as Russian forces in the field teeter on collapse. But 2020 is already in the rear-view mirror. It will no doubt leave a mark upon us, but as we move on, it spins ever faster into our past. At the same time, predicting the future, even when armed with the best data, is fraught with unanticipated obstacles, and grand strategies almost always lead to failure. It remains our duty to study our history while we engage with our present. Apocalyptic or not, it’s all we’ve got …

I have reviewed other Bacevich books here:

Review of: Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, by Andrew J. Bacevich https://regarp.com/2015/12/20/review-of-breach-of-trust-how-americans-failed-the...

Review of: America’s War for the Greater Middle East: A Military History, by Andrew J. Bacevich https://regarp.com/2020/03/30/review-of-americas-war-for-the-greater-middle-east...

-------------------

Review of: After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in the World Transformed, by Andrew Bacevich https://regarp.com/2022/10/04/review-of-after-the-apocalypse-americas-role-in-th... ( )

In After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in a World Transformed, Andrew Bacevich argues that the events of 2020, wildfires, hurricanes, economic collapse, protests, counter-protests, riots, and global pandemic, signified the end of the United States’ status as the sole superpower and that policies need to change to reflect the new reality. As in his previous books, Bacevich argues against the idea of American exceptionalism pointing out that American history is not as neat or as pleasant as most of learned in school. He then puts forth a number of ideas, such as reevaluating the U.S. relationship with both the UK and Israel, that would benefit the US in the future. It’s difficult to find fault with much of what he writes, especially when he discusses prioritizing domestic needs over policing the rest of the world. While not arguing for isolationism, he does believe that the US should be more concerned with the security of Canada and Mexico then Ukraine and Saudi Arabia. Bacevich makes good arguments, however, I don’t know how much luck he will have convincing those who don’t already believe. I don’t think this says anything about his writing or his argument, it says more about society. ( )

After the Apocalypse by Andrew J Bacevich is an engaging and accessible book that tries to show how our current miserable situation didn't just suddenly happen and that by looking at how we got here we can work toward changing the system(s) that are so broken.
Some readers will claim the ideas are utopian. When you read that, just substitute them saying "I love my unearned privilege and entitlement and don't so much want change as I want the appearance of change." Yes, Bacevich's ideas and suggestions do work toward making society better. In a perfect world, such solutions would lead to a utopia (of sorts, since someone's utopia is usually someone else's dystopia) but neither Bacevich nor an engaged active open reader believes this is a perfect world, so these are not utopian ideas, these are ideas aimed at making actual change and not just pretending to make change "within the system." You know, like all those compassionate and community minded business leaders and politicians.
I recommend this book and also will warn readers, even ones like myself who will agree with the big picture here, that you will disagree with some things. That is what debate and discussion is for. Those who dismiss as "leftist" or "utopian" don't want change and are incapable of debate or discussion, debate for them is yelling louder, even if what they yell stinks.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via LibraryThing Early Reviewers.


( )

Bacevich's polemics are always well-intentioned and entertaining. I don't think this one ever becomes a screed, but it won't go down as one of his best works. Bacevich's argument is that ideas about American exceptionalism have seeped into the body politic and have driven a host of policies and actions, both domestically and abroad, that have caused serious (perhaps irreparable) harm. The United States, in Bacevich's view, must fundamentally reform its policies if it is to renew itself and prevent further decline. But, and here's the catch, American exceptionalism is so all-pervasive that we cannot even consider making the policy changes (end militarization of U.S. foreign and domestic policies, normalize relationships with even our closest allies, etc.) that Bacevich views as being so sorely needed.

He is far too harsh in his judgments of Trump and goes far too easily on Obama. There is no discussion, for instance, of Trump being the first president since Carter to not start a new war, and Trump's interests in extricating the United States from the greater Middle East. I am skeptical that Biden would have completed the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan if Trump had not taken the United States most of the way down this road. And let us not forget Obama's various new and failed military adventures. I understand that Bacevich loves Obama and hates Trump, but at times his emotions weaken his analysis.

I would have liked to see his policy prescriptions for the future of U.S. grand strategy expressed in just a couple pages at the end of the last chapter be greatly expanded--THIS is the section we most need.

I don't know that Bacevich has convinced anyone of the rightness of his views with this book. Either you read this one because you already see the problems inherent to the idea of American exceptionalism or not, and if not, well, I don't know that you would be convinced by the arguments (and diatribes) that Bacevich brings to bear. (And I say that as someone who almost entirely agrees with Bacevich's policy prescriptions.) Good, but I wanted much more from this one. ( )