In the 20th century, “our” side won because American industry and ingenuity produced not only superior military might but also a superior way of life based on consumption and choice—so at least Americans have been thoroughly conditioned to believe. A third assumption asserts that U.S. military power offers the most expeditious means of ensuring that universal freedom prevails—that the armed might of the United States, made manifest in the presence of airplanes, warships and fighting troops, serves as an irreplaceable facilitator or catalyst in moving history toward its foreordained destination. That the commitment of American armed might could actually backfire and make matters worse is a proposition that few authorities in Washington are willing to entertain.
..
Not coincidentally, a Pakistani tribal elder talks about the effect that US drone attacks has on his community:
“Children stopped going to school, the women have become mental health patients, in my own house my four children, my daughter has mental problems, because of drones,” he said.
And the strikes are not fulfilling their aim, he argued.
“These drone attacks do not finish terrorists. When in one house two or three children and their mother or father are targeted by drone attacks, the whole household become terrorists against America,” he argued.
.. He said that American policy towards the Middle East is emblematic of a nation that does not believe it has limits.
In this view, America keeps making these catastrophic mistakes because we believe that wanting a certain outcome is enough to make it happen. We are rich enough, powerful enough, and, in our own minds, righteous enough that it should happen.
.. But come on, can we really say with a straight face that the hedonistic culture of the post-Christian West is no threat to their way of life? That they have nothing to fear from us, other than our drones and bombs?
The Post-Imperial Moment
Empire had its evils, as Roth himself details in another great work, The Radetzky March, but one cannot deny empire’s historical function—to provide stability and order to vast tracts of land occupied by different peoples, particularly in Europe. If not empire, what then?
.. For the external aggression of these new regional hegemons is, in part, motivated by internal weakness. They’re using nationalism to assuage the unraveling domestic economies upon which their societies’ stability rests.
Global Trump
But it’s hard to support a case that the U.S. is spending too much to defend the global order that it built after the Second World War. The U.S., Canada, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and Australia—the rich inner circle of what used to be called the Free World—today constitute almost sixty per cent of the world’s economy. According to the World Bank, in 2014 the U.S. spent about three and a half per cent of its G.D.P. on the military. That’s down from more than five per cent during the late Cold War. As an investment in shared prosperity (or, if you prefer, global hegemony), the running cost of American military power may be one of history’s better bargains.
.. It would be better if those allies spent a little more, but it’s not obvious that America’s forthcoming global challenges—such as managing China’s rise and Russia’s revanchism—would be advanced by more German and Japanese militarism. Because the U.S. military is so much larger and more effective than any other, and because militaries are so hierarchical, it is more efficient to defend the core alliances disproportionately, from Washington. In any event, defense treaties among democratic societies are really compacts among peoples, through their elected governments, to sacrifice and even die for one another if circumstances require it. Demeaning those commitments as if they were transactional protection rackets is corrosive and self-defeating.
.. Saudi Arabia already devotes about a tenth of its G.D.P. to defense, one of the highest rates in the world.
.. As Pericles reportedly said of an Athenian empire, “It may have been wrong to take it; it is certainly dangerous to let it go.”
.. We do need to rebuild bridges, airports, railways, and telecommunications. But defense spending isn’t stopping us from doing so; the problem is the Republican anti-tax extremists in Congress, who refuse to either raise revenues or take advantage of historically low long-term interest rates.
Max Boot on Permanent Iraq Presense
Boot vigorously supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2007 surge.[4] He wrote a Wall Street Journal op-ed in April 2011 arguing that it is “in America’s Interest to Stay in Iraq” because
[h]aving active bases would allow us to project power and influence in the region.[34]
.. Boot supports what he calls American imperialism based on nation building and the pursuit of spreading democracy across the non-Western world. He sees this as the only way to prevent another event like the 9/11 attacks. He has written, “[u]nlike 19th-century European colonialists, we would not aim to impose our rule permanently. Instead… occupation would be a temporary expedient to allow the people to get back on their feet”.[36] He advocates creating a formal Department of Peace alongside the currentDepartment of Defense to promote democracy building abroad.[25] He later stated in an interview that he thinks most Americans feel uncomfortable with being called an ’empire’, but that they would be willing to act like one regardless.[37] He has said that he believes the U.S. must act as a world police agency since “[t]here is nobody else out there”.[25]