Rhetorical Strategy

In Andrew J. Bachevich's The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, he often changes his approach to his topic in sometimes confusing but overall captivating fashion. Starting on page 9, the first chapter, "Wilsonians Under Arms," he is more colloquial and approaches his topic in a flourishing, story-telling way. This is understandable when one considers that this is the beginning of the first chapter of the book, and Bachevich must engage his reader and persuade them to a degree to continue to read the book. However, this kind of diction continues to a degree past the itial section of the first chapter. For example, he writes regarding political leader's love for militarism, "The ensuing affair had and continues to have a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion persued in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue." (Bacevich 14). This is language more apt to be seen in a work of literary criticism rather than a more academic work. I wonder whether this wording is proper when considering the context of the text. It is still very early on in the book, and the author must continue to grab the reader. Also, he is talking about a general observation on a trend through history, which is difficult to capture in concrete terms, so it seems plausible that the author is fitting the language to his topic.
I think that the previous discussion is plausible especially when one sees that whenever Bachevich makes a major point, his writing style shifts to a much more technical and logical fashion. For example, he writes that "Under the terms of that consensus, mainstream politicians today take as a given that American military supremacy is an unqualified good, evidence of a larger American superiority." (Bacevich 15). Here he is much more forward with his point in comparison to the much more circumlocutious style earlier. I don't exactly approve of his sweeping generalities though, as exhibited by the statement. Because many people would accept this statement as a trueism, I feel that generalities such as this are even more precarious because the author himself can fall into the trap of not backing up his work. It's good to talk about overarching themes such as Wilsonianism, but I would like to see a more detailed explanation of how this ideology has effected people worldwide. I personally believe that this is true, but his arguement would be stronger if he had more substance within his arguement.

Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Wilsonian Perspective of the World

I feel that the first chapter of the reading is especially relevant when viewed in context that today is the Inauguration of President Obama, and we may experience a "new" place in the world when it is obvious that we will be continuing in the same manner as before, though with some minute details. I am simply worried that with the shift to a "softer" form of diplomacy, individuals will approach a militarily inefficient way of combating threats in the name of a "peaceful" and "respectful" way of doing business. As Bacevich admits on page fifty of his text, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War, Colin Powell made a mistake by trying to make the Gulf War a quick event without any gratuitous killing (Bacevich 50). This permitted a large part of enemy Iraqi Combatants to continue to be used as a resource for Saddam Hussein to impose a tyrannical regime. Also referenced in the text was the concession made to allow Iraqi helicopters to continue to fly, which were then used to put down dissenting forces within the Iraqi border (Bacevich 50). Within this context, I feel that it is important not to view the Iraq War as a unique and singular war in itself, but rather the result of the continuation of bad policy and poor wartime decisions that have effected the American presence in the Middle East. I feel it is ignorant to blame Bush for our problems in Iraq, though mistakes were made in how that war was conducted, our issues and interests in the Middle East have existed for a long time.

One way I believe our dependence on militarism in the Middle East could be decreased would be by making our interests there less vital. Though I personally believe that the Iraqi War was fought for more reasons than simply oil, it is a major factor that extends from beyond the ideological sphere and into the everyday domestic world within the most culturally sheltered part of American society: suburbia. One can believe in global warming or not, but I believe it simply makes political and economic sense to emphasize alternative sources that take advantage of the natural resources of the United States. This is not so much a call to isolationism, as the United States depends on its living standards to a degree on the labor and resources of other nations, but the ability to seal off one way other countries can try to effect our living standard and economic prosperity.

Andrew J. Bacevich, The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

A "Just" War

In the first reading of Chris Hedges' War Is a Force that Gives Us Meaning, I was struck by what I saw as a contradiction; on page 16 Hedges writes that "We in the industrial world bear the responsibility for the world's genocides because we had the power to intervene and did not." (Hedges 8). It seems that he is calling for what most people would consider a "just" war, a war that is done with humanitarian interests in mind, to help save the innocents from the thugs who are intent on slaughtering human beings. I would love to help stop the genocide in Darfur or have been able to stop the Rawanda massacres, but if Hedges is going to focus on how our society needs "humility" in our actions, I am sure he must then recognize the limits of our strength (Hedges 17). Our operations in Iraq, when looking through the neoconservative view of the Bush administration, should be justified because, in general terms, what could be a greater goal than to "liberate" a group of people from a tyrant who oppressed and gassed the citizens of his country. Our resources are pooled at this moment within Iraq and though we have bases all over the world, if we are to maintain our position as hegemon within a world that is globalizing and developing, it becomes an imperative to have our security protected abroad rather than on home soil. Thus, though a noble goal to go and intervene, I believe that it is important to continue to emphasize the necessity for armed interventions, but the global community, who seems so concerned about the humanitarian issues that are occuring throughout the world cannot expect to criticize the United States for being unable to carry out worthy armed interventions because we are in Iraq. It is easy, worthy I think, to criticize the planning done before the invasion, but the rest of the world needs to step it up in our place if they are going to justified in their criticism of the United States inability to act.

Hedges, Chris. War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Anchor Books, 2003.