United States militarism

Last updated
A pie chart showing global military expenditures by country for 2019, in US$ billions, according to SIPRI Military Expenditures by Country 2019.svg
A pie chart showing global military expenditures by country for 2019, in US$ billions, according to SIPRI

United States militarism refers to the reliance of the United States on its military force to pursue foreign policy goals that can be achieved more effectively by other means. [1]

Contents

Militarism has been defined as the tendency to regard military efficiency as the supreme ideal of the state, overshadowing all other interests. In a militarist society, military institutions and ways are ranked above the ways of civilian life, and military mentality is carried over into the civilian sphere." [2] Since the end of the Cold War, the US military has continued to grow even without any existential threat to the US, as it currently spends more than 40% of all military expenditures worldwide and has military forces stationed in more than 150 countries. [3] The ongoing War on Terror and the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have all contributed significantly to the current prominent role of the US Department of Defense in American politics. Administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have also ensured that military leaders dominate positions related to national security, to the detriment of diplomatic solutions with Iran, North Korea, or the Middle East. [1] The recent administrations, as early as President Bill Clinton, have thus placed the Department of Defense in a position of unprecedented power and influence.

Background

Throughout the first two centuries of American history, a potent military force was necessary to face immediate threats at the time. When these threats were lifted, the military establishment was reduced in size by policymakers. That is, the army assembled for each crisis vanished as soon as that crisis ended. This was the case in 1865, 1918, and 1945, corresponding to the Civil War, and the First and Second World Wars, respectively. For instance, the million-men-strong Union Army of 1865 dwindled to just 57,000 in a year and to less than 30,000 in another five years. This pattern continued even after the Second World War when the United States had taken on the responsibilities of a superpower. The US Army had more than eight million officers and soldiers on V-J Day in 1945. Only 1.8 million people were still on active duty after a year, and that number was cut in half again the next year. [4]

Cold War

With the start of the Cold War in 1947 and after the enactment of the National Security Act in the same year, the US military forces were automatically included in the national security doctrine during peacetime. Over the following four decades, military influence increased, leading to the 1986 Defense Reorganization Act, also known as the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which designated the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the "principal military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense." [5] Civilian academics and business researchers, including Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn, came to prominence during the Cold War and significantly promoted the use of force. The complexity of the nuclear policy may have contributed to the rise of these "defense intellectuals" and their think tanks. [6]

Post Cold War era

After the end of the Cold War, the United States took advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact by encouraging the newly liberated nations to join the NATO, the political and military alliance of the West. [1] Since then, it has been a policy of the US to maintain military superiority over potential adversaries. [4] This era is marked by an increased propensity to employ force, which might have normalized war. [7] During the Cold War era, from 1945 to 1988, there were six significant US military operations abroad. In comparison, since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, nine significant military interventions have taken place, from the 1989 Operation Just Cause (the ouster of Manuel Noriega) to the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom (the overthrow of Saddam Hussein). [8] In this latter period, the convergence of CIA and JSOC operators was "so complete that US officials ranging from congressional staffers to high-ranking CIA officers said they often [found] it difficult to distinguish agency [CIA] from military personnel." [9] Since the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, some have contended that the United States has evolved into a neo-militaristic state, characterized by its reliance on a relatively limited number of volunteer combatants, substantial reliance on sophisticated technologies, and rationalization and extension of government recruitment and advertising campaigns. [10] The American response to the 9/11 attacks as a "global" war on terror promoted the recent remilitarization of the Western countries, and introduced the Middle East as the source of threats to the rest of the world, which helped justify the bigger efforts after 9/11 to forcefully reshape the region. [11]

Rationale

According to the prevailing national security consensus, major politicians today assume that American military dominance is an unquestionable virtue and proof of greater American superiority. They believe that this armed might holds the key to establishing a world order that supports American values. One outcome of this consensus over the past 25 years has been the militarization of US policies and the promotion of tendencies that suggest American culture as a whole is becoming more and more enamored with its self-image as the unrivaled military power. There are many distinct ways in which this new American militarism shows itself. It does so, first and foremost, in terms of the size, expense, and organizational structure of America's current military system. [4]

The historian Andrew Bacevich maintains that American leaders in the past considered the use of force as proof that diplomacy had failed. Today, in the words of Vice President Dick Cheney, using force "makes your diplomacy more effective going forward, dealing with other problems." Similarly, President Bush described the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a preventive war, [8] saying elsewhere that, "this country must go on the offense and stay on the offense." [7] A number of authors [a] [b] contend that the US should accept the status of a worldwide empire given the country's power. According to Coyne and Hall, these scholars believe that an interventionist foreign policy strengthens domestic institutions by promoting peace, stability, and freedom on a global scale. [12] Bacevich similarly argues that American policy is to uphold global order and "lead, save, liberate, and ultimately transform the world.". [11] According to Coyne & Hall the western liberal values that the US government promotes in other cultures by leveraging the country's military and economic might, are frequently neglected, in order to maintain control over remote populations. [13]

Militarism in the American culture

While allowing the government to provide security is frequently seen as essential to upholding a free society, it may also give the state the capacity to trample on freedom in the name of safety. In this vein, Senator William Fulbright warned [c] that the "militarism that has crept up on us [the United States] is bringing about profound changes in the character of our society and government—changes that are slowly undermining democratic procedure and values." [2] The historian Arthur Ekirch believes that Americans were historically skeptical of an aggressive foreign policy. This skepticism, however, began to disappear during World War II, further eroded later on by the Cold War and the establishment of a permanent war economy centered on preparing for future conflicts. [14] The American public thus gradually began to believe that using force aggressively is the best way to address foreign issues or challenges in the decades after the end of World War II. [15] According to the historian Andrew Bacevich, the lives of many young Americans are now deeply entrenched with militarism, and war has become the new normal for them. [15] General Shoup suggests that "millions of proud, patriotic, and frequently bellicose and militaristic citizens" support their government's involvement in foreign wars and contribute to America's militaristic culture. [16] American political figures are thus shaped by this popular culture and conform to it. When talking about significant international issues, such as Iran and its nuclear program, American officials now nearly always say, "Nothing is off the table," threatening the use of direct military force. [17] In the opinion of Chalmers Johnson, no single war or event caused America's militarization. Rather, it stems from the varied experiences of American citizens in the armed forces, ideas about war that evolve from one war to another, and the growth of a massive arms industry. [18]

With an estimated 270 million weapons, gun ownership in the US far exceeds the rest of the world. In terms of the number of random massacres, rampage killings, and serial killings, the US similarly tops all other nations. On the global market, it is the largest producer and supplier of all varieties of military-style weaponry. [19] Shoup writes that "the American people have become more and more accustomed to militarism, to uniforms, to the cult of the gun, and to the violence of combat." [19] The Army and the government of the United States actively promote the development of a martial spirit throughout the nation with initiatives such as supporting military education in the country's high schools, hosting military competitions in major cities, promoting marksmanship competitions, and encouraging civilian attendance at military maneuvers. [20] The American military also works closely with major studios to ensure favourable presentation.

Boomerang effect

Mark Twain, the famed author, thought that American intervention abroad had tangible effects on the social fabric of America. His views were further developed by Coyne and Hall, who hypothesize that foreign interference broadens domestic government and reduces the citizens' freedoms. The so-called "boomerang effect" of foreign intervention is that it offers a trial ground for intervening governments to try out novel social control strategies on faraway populations. These technologies are then brought back to the intervening nation, thus helping the intervening government to better control both home and foreign populations. As the intervening state obtains more control over its citizens, domestic freedom deteriorates. [21] To stop the boomerang effect in the United States, Coyne and Hall say that the American foreign policy must be revised and that can only happen when enough Americans adopt an antimilitarist worldview. [22]

Role of propaganda

By emphasizing the risks from external threats and portraying the state as the ultimate source of order and safety, propaganda can help foster a culture of militarism that prioritizes national security over domestic, economic, political, and social institutions. [2] By highlighting external threats, propaganda may also draw the citizens' attention away from the basic and ongoing struggle between domestic government authority and liberty. [23] According to Coyne and Hall, American politicians regularly incite anxieties about new and severe dangers, necessitating more money and more control over both Americans and foreigners. [24] They also accuse the US government of disseminating incomplete and inaccurate information about the threats to American citizens. [25]

Sport

Since World War I, sports have been used by the American government to garner support for military actions and promote military unification. [26] In particular, sociologist Alan Bairner views sports as a common vehicle for the expression of nationalist sentiment in the service of politicians. For instance, the National Football League has been enlisted by authorities to help create and sustain support for American military and foreign policy, [27] since the 9/11 attacks. [28] After the attacks, several professional sports teams received funding from the Department of Defense to stage patriotic events to raise support for the war in Iraq and the broader battle against terror. [26]

Civilian oversight

There have been instances of the White House using force without prior congressional approval over the past forty years. During the Ford administration (1974-1977), Congress was not involved in the Mayaguez rescue effort. Similarly, Iran's rescue operation was deemed too sensitive for Congress during the Carter administration (1977-1981). The Reagan administration (1981-1989) invaded Grenada, bombed Libya, and conducted an air campaign against Iran, all without congressional approval. The same was true of the use of force in the Philippines, Panama, and El Salvador. [29] To regain control over matters of war and peace, Congress approved the War Powers Resolution (WPR) in 1973 which necessitated a "collective judgment" before sending American forces into battle. Even though WPR was passed over President Nixon's veto, Goodman, an expert in national security and intelligence, believes that the subsequent administrations have refused to uphold the resolution. [29] He adds that the influence of the State Department has declined over time while Pentagon's role has increased, as reflected in their budgets. [30]

Criticism

Since the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the US has waged war in Iraq and Afghanistan and employed military force in Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen within its war on terror. [31] The historian Andrew Bacevich observes that "today as never before in their history Americans are enthralled with military power," which, in his view, endangers US security at home and "wreaks havoc abroad." [22] Similarly, Goodman suggests that the US dependence on its military hurts US national interests at a time when the entire globe is experiencing extreme economic duress. [31] To support his view, Goodman notes that the US has provided significant military aid to military governments in Brazil, Chile, Indonesia, Pakistan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Libya over the past several decades. These governments eventually had to undergo reforms or cede control to a civilian administration. [1] The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have also placed a heavy financial burden on the US without increasing its security. [32] These wars instead heightened regional tensions and destabilized both countries. [31]

Notes

  1. ↑ See Boot (2002), Ferguson (2003), Ferguson (2004), Ferguson & Schularick (2006), Lal (2004), McCarthy (2014), Kane (2014), Cohen (2016). See also Mitchener & Weidenmier (2005).
  2. ↑ Just noticed that these sources aren't really listed in the bibliography below.
  3. ↑ Who did he warn? Do we know that?

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 4 Goodman 2013, pp. 11–12.
  2. 1 2 3 Coyne & Hall 2021, p. 17.
  3. ↑ Stavrianakis & Selby 2013, pp. 6–7.
  4. 1 2 3 Stavrianakis & Selby 2013, p. 119.
  5. ↑ Goodman 2013, p. 12.
  6. ↑ Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (1983, reissued 1991).
  7. 1 2 Stavrianakis & Selby 2013, p. 122.
  8. 1 2 Stavrianakis & Selby 2013, pp. 121–122.
  9. ↑ Adams & Murray 2014, p. 270.
  10. ↑ Roberts 2008, pp. 14, 108–117.
  11. 1 2 Stavrianakis & Selby 2013, pp. 43–44.
  12. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 5.
  13. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 171.
  14. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 176.
  15. 1 2 Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 172.
  16. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 177.
  17. ↑ Adams & Murray 2014, p. 286.
  18. ↑ Johnson 2004, p. 79.
  19. 1 2 Boggs 2016, p. vii.
  20. ↑ Possner 2009, pp. 1–3.
  21. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2018, pp. I–II, 16.
  22. 1 2 Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 178.
  23. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2021, p. 18.
  24. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2018, p. 184.
  25. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2021, p. Xiv.
  26. 1 2 Coyne & Hall 2021, p. 21.
  27. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2021, pp. 86–87.
  28. ↑ Coyne & Hall 2021, p. 105-106.
  29. 1 2 Goodman 2013, pp. 345–346.
  30. ↑ Goodman 2013, pp. 347–348.
  31. 1 2 3 Goodman 2013, pp. 12–14.
  32. ↑ Goodman 2013, p. 346.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreign policy of the United States</span> National foreign policy of the United States

The officially stated goals of the foreign policy of the United States of America, including all the bureaus and offices in the United States Department of State, as mentioned in the Foreign Policy Agenda of the Department of State, are "to build and sustain a more democratic, secure, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community". Liberalism has been a key component of US foreign policy since its independence from Britain. Since the end of World War II, the United States has had a grand strategy which has been characterized as being oriented around primacy, "deep engagement", and/or liberal hegemony. This strategy entails that the United States maintains military predominance; builds and maintains an extensive network of allies ; integrates other states into US-designed international institutions ; and limits the spread of nuclear weapons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq disarmament crisis</span> Early 2000s diplomatic crisis

The Iraq disarmament crisis was claimed as one of the primary issues that led to the multinational invasion of Iraq on 20 March 2003.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bush Doctrine</span> Foreign policy principles of US President George W. Bush

The Bush Doctrine refers to multiple interrelated foreign policy principles of the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. These principles include unilateralism, preemptive war, and regime change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carter Doctrine</span> 1980 US policy

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf. It was a response to the Soviet Union's intervention in Afghanistan in 1979, and it was intended to deter the Soviet Union, the United States' Cold War adversary, from seeking hegemony in the Persian Gulf region.

"Peace through strength" is a phrase that suggests that military power can help preserve peace. It has been used by many leaders from Roman Emperor Hadrian in the second century AD to former US President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. The concept has long been associated with realpolitik. The idea has critics, with Andrew Bacevich stating, "'Peace through strength' easily enough becomes 'peace through war.'"

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Militarism</span> National reliance on a strong military

Militarism is the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values. It may also imply the glorification of the military and of the ideals of a professional military class and the "predominance of the armed forces in the administration or policy of the state".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">American imperialism</span> Expansion of American political, economic, and military influence

American imperialism is the expansion of American political, economic, cultural, media, and military influence beyond the boundaries of the United States of America. Depending on the commentator, it may include imperialism through outright military conquest; military protection; gunboat diplomacy; unequal treaties; subsidization of preferred factions; regime change; economic or diplomatic support; or economic penetration through private companies, potentially followed by diplomatic or forceful intervention when those interests are threatened.

Neoconservatism is a political movement which began in the United States during the 1960s among liberal hawks who became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist Democratic Party along with the growing New Left and counterculture of the 1960s. Neoconservatives typically advocate the unilateral promotion of democracy and interventionism in international relations together with a militaristic and realist philosophy of "peace through strength". They are known for espousing opposition to communism and radical politics.

A preventive war is an armed conflict "initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk." The party which is being attacked has a latent threat capability or it has shown that it intends to attack in the future, based on its past actions and posturing. A preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power by strategically attacking before the balance of power has had a chance to shift in the favor of the targeted party. Preventive war is distinct from preemptive strike, which is the first strike when an attack is imminent. Preventive uses of force "seek to stop another state. .. from developing a military capability before it becomes threatening or to hobble or destroy it thereafter, whereas [p]reemptive uses of force come against a backdrop of tactical intelligence or warning indicating imminent military action by an adversary."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Andrew Bacevich</span> American military historian (born 1947)

Andrew J. Bacevich Jr. is an American historian specializing in international relations, security studies, American foreign policy, and American diplomatic and military history. He is a professor emeritus of international relations and history at the Boston University Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies. He is also a retired career officer in the Armor Branch of the United States Army, retiring with the rank of colonel. He is a former director of Boston University's Center for International Relations, now part of the Pardee School of Global Studies. Bacevich is the co-founder and president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States foreign policy in the Middle East</span> Activities and objectives of the United States in the Middle East

United States foreign policy in the Middle East has its roots in the early 19th-century Tripolitan War that occurred shortly after the 1776 establishment of the United States as an independent sovereign state, but became much more expansive in the aftermath of World War II. With the goal of preventing the Soviet Union from gaining influence in the region during the Cold War, American foreign policy saw the deliverance of extensive support in various forms to anti-communist and anti-Soviet regimes; among the top priorities for the U.S. with regards to this goal was its support for the State of Israel against its Soviet-backed neighbouring Arab countries during the peak of the Arab–Israeli conflict. The U.S. also came to replace the United Kingdom as the main security patron for Saudi Arabia as well as the other Arab states of the Persian Gulf in the 1960s and 1970s in order to ensure, among other goals, a stable flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. As of 2023, the U.S. has diplomatic relations with every country in the Middle East except for Iran, with whom relations were severed after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and Syria, with whom relations were suspended in 2012 following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criticism of United States foreign policy</span>

Criticism of United States foreign policy encompasses a wide range of opinions and views on the perceived failures and shortcomings of American foreign policy and actions. Some Americans view the country as qualitatively different from other nations and believe it cannot be judged by the same standards as other countries; this belief is sometimes termed American exceptionalism. This belief was particularly prevalent in the 20th century. This belief became less dominant in the 21st century as the country has become more divided politically and has made highly controversial foreign policy decisions such as the Iraq War. Nevertheless, the United States is an extremely powerful country and is still generally considered a world superpower from an economic, military, and political point-of-view, and it has sometimes disregarded international norms, rules, and laws in its foreign policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Christopher Coyne (professor)</span> American economics professor

Christopher J. Coyne is the F.A. Harper Professor of Economics at George Mason University and the associate director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Egypt–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

Egypt and the United States formally began relations in 1922 after Egypt gained nominal independence from the United Kingdom. Relations between both countries have largely been dictated by regional issues in the Middle East such as the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Counterterrorism. But also domestic issues in Egypt regarding the country's human rights record and American support for the regimes of Hosni Mubarak and Abdel Fattah el-Sisi which the United States had come under controversy for in the aftermath of the 2011 Egyptian Revolution, and with many dissents of the current regime describing Sisi's rule as tyrannical.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Iraq–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

Diplomatic relations between Iraq and the United States began when the U.S. first recognized Iraq on January 9, 1930, with the signing of the Anglo-American-Iraqi Convention in London by Charles G. Dawes, U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom. The historiography of Iraq—United States relations prior to the 1980s is considered relatively underdeveloped, with the first in-depth academic studies being published in the 2010s. Today, the United States and Iraq both consider themselves as strategic partners, given the American political and military involvement after the invasion of Iraq and their mutual, deep-rooted relationship that followed. The United States provides the Iraqi security forces hundreds of millions of dollars of military aid and training annually as well as uses its military bases.

The American Empire Project is a book series that deals with imperialist and exceptionalist tendencies in US foreign policy in the early 21st century. The series is published by Metropolitan Books and includes contributions by such notable American thinkers and authors as Noam Chomsky, Howard Zinn, Chalmers Johnson and Andrew Bacevich. The project's goal is to critique what the authors consider the imperial ambitions of the United States and to explore viable alternatives for foreign policy.

Criticism of the United States government encompasses a wide range of sentiments about the actions and policies of the United States. Historically, domestic and international criticism of the United States has been driven by its embracement of classical economics, manifest destiny, hemispheric exclusion and exploitation of the Global South, military intervention, and alleged practice of neocolonialism, with its unipolar global position giving it a special responsibility which many feel is misused purely for self-gain, in contradiction with the beliefs and values of American people. This perpetuates negative sentiment towards the US and fuels criticism which is pervasive around the world.

History of the United States foreign policy is a brief overview of major trends regarding the foreign policy of the United States from the American Revolution to the present. The major themes are becoming an "Empire of Liberty", promoting democracy, expanding across the continent, supporting liberal internationalism, contesting World Wars and the Cold War, fighting international terrorism, developing the Third World, and building a strong world economy with low tariffs.

De-Ba'athification refers to a policy undertaken in Iraq by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and subsequent Iraqi governments to remove the Ba'ath Party's influence in the new Iraqi political system after the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. It was considered by the CPA to be Iraq's equivalent to Germany's denazification after World War II. It was first outlined in CPA Order 1 which entered into force on 16 May 2003. The order declared that all public sector employees affiliated with the Ba'ath Party were to be removed from their positions and to be banned from any future employment in the public sector.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic intervention</span>

A democratic intervention is a military intervention by external forces with the aim of assisting democratization of the country where the intervention takes place. Examples include intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq. Democratic intervention has occurred throughout the mid-twentieth century, as evidenced in the Empire of Japan, Nazi Germany and the Kingdom of Italy after World War II, where democracies were imposed by military intervention.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.