Thank you for the edifying exchange. I learned a new word today: “pleonasm”. For a mere 15 years you have an exceedingly erudite vocabulary; congratulations. You are free to disagree with Charles Beard’s read on history all you like, but please try to distinguish his philosophy from my own next time, as they are not the same.

The ways in which personal experience alters our perspective on life is an impressive thing. Bacevich, conservative, isolationist, an old Cold Warrior and Big Army veteran, believes Kaplan’s jaunts around the world are distracting him from the broader strategic implications of imperialism, which Bacevich has railed against at (book-)length previously (thanks to IJ, you can read his own words rather than my attempt at summation and judge them for yourself). Kaplan, on the other hand, would no doubt consider Bacevich to be a member of that cocooned nomenklatura who’s missing out on the new realities of his world.

Similarly, my personal perspective as a student of Bacevich’s makes me think that the previous characterizations of him (as I interpreted them) are without justification. Why? Because I had four classes with him over the course of four years, and one Thanksgiving dinner. Based on those experiences, and that alone, I don’t happen to think the label fits. You, or Curzon, or another reader, relying on this review alone (which, assuming you disagree with Bacevich’s strategic perceptions, is doubtlessly unsatisfying) are likely to take a markedly different interpretation, but my only purpose in commenting here was to throw in my two cents.

But who knows, maybe my personal experience skews my judgement as much as it does Robert Kaplan’s. It being all I’ve got, I’ll have to make the best of things.

Yours in clarity,

mcmc

And what makes you think this is without justification? Given the nature of Bacevich’s reaction to Kaplan, I’d say Curzon is rather vindicated giving the man his comuppance.

I don’t feel this is fair. While this is not a free pass, the man was an army colonel for a number of years; it carries over noticeably into his bearing to this day. He is also quite avowedly conservative. If you knew all this and find this to be a minor point, I apologize; all I can say is I think it is less Kaplan’s masculinity that is being questioned here than his alleged over-romanticization of his experiences and the strategy implications he draws from them. Not having read Kaplan’s book, I’m not in a position to comment, but clearly Bacevich finds his perspective to be skewed.

What I described above isn’t exactly the hallmark of a rugged army colonel. That Bacevich is conservative and of an isolationist bent, a position somewhat like my own, is indeed a minor detail, as it does not exempt him from criticism. In all three pages of his review, Bacevich manages only one single substantive criticism of Kaplan. Beyond that, Bacevich merely reiterates what Kaplan says in an indignant, insulted tone. Surely there are better ways to critique a book.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the writings of Charles Beard or not, but it’s my impression that Bacevich derives a lot of his current views from him. Beard (writing around the WW II era) identified American military expansion as a product of our political and economic system, which emphasized increasing consumption (which we often equate with an increased standard of living), an expansion of markets (for consumption and export), and the release of domestic political tension through the furthering of the frontier. So what I was attempting to distinguish there was that, whether we explicitly endorse this position or not, our complicit participation in the current American socio-economic system translates into broad popular support for expansion or empire (in contrast to a brainwashing conspiracy).

Alright, first off, “complicit participation” is a pleonasm. “Complicity” or “participation” will do. Second, no, in all 15 years of my existence, I have not heard of this Charles Beard fellow, but the veracity of his assertions seems dubious to me: Americans are not by nature a warlike lot. Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916 under, among other things, the slogan “He kept us out of the war!”. The American public and congress were overwhelmingly opposed to FDR’s intervention in WW2. Now that Iraq has proved to be a questionable undertaking, public support for it has plummeted. As for emphasis on increased consumption and an expansion of markets, there might be some truth in it but I find the former to be rather bizarre. Finally, your last statement is a rather confused one: participation in a political system does not translate into “broad popular support” for imperial policies, since the latter by definition requires endorsement on part of the general public, something not exactly forthcoming in America. I take it you ment that participation in the political system in America amounts to tacit support of, or consent to, imperial politics, which is, quite frankly, manifestly nonsensical. Participation of itself is not support for the system: it can be a force for change as well as preservation. Try to have more clarity next time, it’s rather hard to tell exactly what you mean.

The introduction – no doubt appropriate for the speaker’s message – included the transcript of a conversation from Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October 1995. The transcript was released by the U.S. Chief of Naval Operations.

The American: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the north to avoid a collision.”Â?
The Canadian: “We recommend you divert your course 15 degrees to the south to avert a collision.”Â?
The American: “This is the captain of a U.S. naval ship. I say again, divert your course.”Â?
The Canadian: “No. I say again divert your course.”Â?
The Americans: “This is the aircraft carrier USS MISSOURI. We are a large warship of the U.S. Navy. Divert your course now!”Â?
The Canadian: “This is a lighthouse. Your call.”Â?

What about the Gap? It is a wilderness to be tamed, but “to shrink the Gap, you better learn to win without bullets.”

However reliance on economic interdependency throughout the Core seems more and more risky. See Economic Brief: French Protectionism.

Thanks for your kind words. What I was attempting to convey, however briefly and evidently poorly, was my impressions of Bacevich’s philosophy (not my own) as I understood them from my experiences in his classes. Not having read his recent book yet, I cannot say with certainty that its arguments mirror his statements in class, but I read Curzon’s statement that “Americans are brainwashed by our government into loving the military and getting bloodthirsty about sending troops abroad” as a suggestion that Bacevich was presenting some Chomsky or Mills-esque conspiracy by the elites to mislead the American people; that it was foisted upon us (”brainwashing”) rather than a product of the broader society. This and the ivory tower comment causes me to feel that Bacevich is being presented here as just another effete campus intellectual.

I don’t feel this is fair. While this is not a free pass, the man was an army colonel for a number of years; it carries over noticeably into his bearing to this day. He is also quite avowedly conservative. If you knew all this and find this to be a minor point, I apologize; all I can say is I think it is less Kaplan’s masculinity that is being questioned here than his alleged over-romanticization of his experiences and the strategy implications he draws from them. Not having read Kaplan’s book, I’m not in a position to comment, but clearly Bacevich finds his perspective to be skewed.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with the writings of Charles Beard or not, but it’s my impression that Bacevich derives a lot of his current views from him. Beard (writing around the WW II era) identified American military expansion as a product of our political and economic system, which emphasized increasing consumption (which we often equate with an increased standard of living), an expansion of markets (for consumption and export), and the release of domestic political tension through the furthering of the frontier. So what I was attempting to distinguish there was that, whether we explicitly endorse this position or not, our complicit participation in the current American socio-economic system translates into broad popular support for expansion or empire (in contrast to a brainwashing conspiracy).

Thanks,

mcmc

Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.

“Explicit product” is thus a meaningless phraeseology.
You can’t have an “explicit product”, only explicit intentions, something that is explicitly a part of something, ect. Stop flinging terms around arbitrarily.

Fully and clearly expressed; leaving nothing implied.

“Explicit product” is thus a meaningless phraeseology.
You can’t have an “explicit product”, only explicit intentions, something that is explicitly a part of something, ect. Stop flinging terms around arbitrarily.

Really? Why not? Methinks he doth prostest too much over Kaplan’s alleged excess of masculinity.

he arguments I recall from classes always emphasized that an American predeliction for militarism (so alleged) was not a result of some great government conspiracy to goad us to war……

Since when did Curzon or any of the others state or imply this in their statements? Do tell.

…..but rather the complicit or explicit product of the majority of the citizenry’s preferred political and economic system.

This is such an ill-contrived statement that I don’t know where to begin. “Complicit” is defined as taking part in. What, praytell, is the product of this “preferred political and economic system” complicit with, exactly? Your style clearly shows that you are using words without regard for context in a feeble attempt to sound intelligent.

Yea, Random House gets the bozack for not sending you guys advance copies. Somebody should tell Kaplan or his agent….

I sort of lost my respect for the US because of its political class and perversion of market economics into an oligarchical corporate structure (also called “Fascism” by Mussolini)

Even so, American corporatism for all its evils is preferable to the European Social-Democracy hogwash.

Kinder, gentler Barnett. Still very unhappy with Kaplan but liked parts of the excerpt.

IMHO - the SOCOM vs. Big Army conflict is key and its critical that SOCOM win the widest autonomy possible. When I saw the pic of the Spec.Ops guys in beards and mixed U.S./Afghan garb I thought ” somebody understands their job pretty damn well”.

Because seriously, Bacevich’s review took way too long and never got around to clearly stating its thesis, that Kaplan disagrees with Bacevich and for that is a very, very bad man.

My own beefs with Kaplan’s style aside, his gut’s in the right place and I look forward to reading his new book.