The New American Militarism Summary

In the 1940’s a series of propaganda films titled Why We Fight were produced for the purpose of defining the enemies of World War 2 to justify the necessity of America’s involvement in war. Hitler needed to be defeated, Nazism had to be destroyed, and tyranny had to be stopped for the sake of the American way of life by any means necessary. How could society argue against America’s role in the world war when freedom was being threatened? As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to everywhere.” No questions asked, Americans mobilized in the name of liberty and freedom. However the 2005 documentary film Why We Fight directed by Eugene Jarecki is not a sequel or war propaganda. The film informs the audience and questions America 's military industrial complex that has since dictated policy since the victory of World War 2. With the help of narration, soundbites, and credible speakers Jarecki shines light on the pernicious impact of the armed industry on our government, army, and citizens.

The challenges were that there was not a well-trained army, the white male population size, the loyalist, and money.

The United States has a complex relationship with war, our soldiers, and simply the military in general. This shaky relationship seems to stem from our conflicting values on bravery, strength, and courage mixed with distrust of standing militaries and the government. A few wars, like World War One, are remembered as fondly as wars can be, because it fits into the easily digestible good versus evil type that people love to imagine. Other wars, like Korea and the Spanish- American, are simply forgotten for one reason or another. The last type of war is the one that doesn’t fit into easily understood explanation of the reasons Americans are fighting or who the opponent really is. American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan are prime examples

Andrew J. Bacevich believes that our political system is simply trashed. In The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, he argues that the country’s founding principle, freedom has become confused with appetite. Turning America’s traditional quest for liberty and freedom into an obsession with consumption, by the U.S. public for the economic power of the elites, the never-ending search for more. He states that in order to accommodate this hunger, we are finding pandering politicians creating an informal domain of supply, maintaining it through continuous endless wars. The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, Bacevich conservative principles and his anger rage at the Bush Administration’s reckless militancy. Dedicating and referring to the memory of his son, Army First Lieutenant Andrew Bacevich, Jr., whom unimpeachable credentials and activism against the war did not stop his son from being deployed to Iraq 2007. Bacevich identifies three major crises he believes is plaguing the United States: military inefficacy, greed, and political incompetence.

That is my first thought upon arriving at MacDill Air Force Base, Florida, on March 11, 2010. We stop at a small red-roofed gatehouse with a single-beamed electric post. The quiet entrance of this base, with its red-leafed palms, towering oaks, and rows of citrus trees, set on a 6,000-acre peninsula, has the appearance of an idyllic beach resort.

The book over all is about foreign policy and America being a super power and world leader. This in turn shares what one individual thinks America should go about doing it in the future and what he thinks America has done bad or wrong in the past. This is essentially the opinion on one way for things to be done by an individual who has a strong argument and evidence to back his claim up. Overall the book is very good and has strong evidence persuading you to see the author’s point of view and why the author feels the way he does. Someone who should read this book would be someone who wishes to be enlightened on foreign policy because the book destroys myths that surround this topic. This book allows the reader to understand exactly what America’s interests are in engaging foreign policy for the gain of America and other nations as

Is it important to know the past? Why or why not? Well first of all what is the past? That’s a question asked by all… the past is something that has not only already happened, but created what we have now. Without many of things that happened in the past where would we be right now? Would we ever know? Well, obviously not because the past did happen and the present is now occurring. Our past shouldn’t be kept a secret. What we are living in right now will soon be known as another name such as the “past”. The past is reality. Even if it may seem a little scary it did happen and there's no fact that it didn’t. So may I say that even if you don’t think there's anyone to help you understand the past because it was a long time ago.. trust me

The military industrial complex was a term coined by President Eisenhower describing the growing relationship between the military and the government, mostly regarding the massive increase in military spending. Since the Cold War, the United States has continually expanded military spending, particularly the Department of Defense, which is currently 21 times more expensive than the State Department. The most common effect this has on members of Congress is the pressure that is put on them to appropriate funds for the DOD in the best way possible. The consequences of not being able appropriate the proper funds could result in job loss missed economic opportunities and ultimately not being reelected. Congress deals with funding projects such as the expensive F-35 which has yet to be made. Lockheed and Martin, the F-35s designers, applied a method called political engineering in order to get bipartisan support. This method includes using the 133,000 jobs across 45 states as leverage in order for state politicians to continue their support. Another deal congress has had to deal with is the Base Realignment and Closing Commissions (BRACs) which essentially

“The Destruction of Culture” by Chris Hedges focuses on the “myth” of war: which “Entices a nation to glory and sacrifice”. Although many people believe that war is a way to bring a country closer together through nationalism, it only severs the bonds of the country more. Believing war is the only option means believing in the myths that war brings. Which causes one to be brainwashed by their society, eroding the moral fabric of authentic culture. Causing them to believe only the simplicity of war, that they are good and the enemy side is bad.

According to this approach the war aimed at “building a better world for the humankind” (Gallicchio 981). However, the third and “critical” (Gallicchio 980) mode questions the humanitarian aspect of the United States’ involvement in the war, especially, the “proponents of this view disparaged any suggestion that war might be ennobling or serve idealistic ends” (Gallicchio 981). Nonetheless, the particular notions still exist in the American collective memory. Specifically, the first mode dominates the American collective identity and still shapes the U.S political narrative. As Marc Gallicchio has claimed, Americans view of the war was that it “had been launched by totalitarian governments that exploited the economic chaos of the global depression to begin their unimpeded campaigns against weak, disorganized, and demoralized democracies” (983).

Robert Kagan’s article “The Importance of U.S. Military Might Shouldn’t be underestimated” examines whether or not implementing defense cuts would be good for the US national interests. He argues that it would not be good idea due to the U.S’s use of the military force to help spread democracy around the world and upholding the international system. He fears that these defense budget reductions will lead to U.S. forced to cede power over to other countries due to the reduction of the U.S.’s ability to provide security. Kagan uses concepts from realism and idealism within his article to persuade his audience to persuade his audience that cutting the defense budget is a terrible idea.

America’s key to success falls on the citizen’s will to bloody themselves to protect their livelihood. The American nation fights wars on a daily basis to ensure all rights and safety of the citizens continues. Since America became a country, citizens rise to the call of action at the cost of their lives to protect and serve. America’s military, the largest and greatest military in the world, dominates every other country and will remain that way for years to come. For centuries, America’s morals drives citizens to take part in fighting for freedoms earned over two hundred years

Historically, America’s involvement in war has been met with opposition. The Vietnam and Korean Wars were unpopular with many United States citizens due to the fact that the country had no personal reason for involvement, as they were not attacked. However, attacks on American soil have been known to bring rise to a large sense of nationalism. Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, America came together to fight the war on terrorism. Likewise, America was drawn into World War Two after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. American literature would not dare speak ill of American involvement in World War Two. Unlike any author in his time, Joseph Heller —who opposed war himself— “voiced the anxious, absurdist, outrageous reaction of a generation

When a person thinks of war, most of one’s thoughts seem to be negatively connoted for good reason; after all, during war time countries lie devastated, scared at the thought of not only the deaths of military personnel, but civilian casualties as well. It is no wonder that when it comes to gaining support for declaring war on another country, the art of persuasion is used to convince others that the good of combat will outweigh the bad. While warfare is terrifying, it is often thought of as necessary like President Franklin Delano Roosevelt thought about declaring war on Japan after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. After this traumatic event, President Roosevelt gave a persuasive speech proposing that congress support him in his efforts of declaring

Firstly, we will analyse the case of the American military. Military power largely dominates the minds of neo-conservative scholars. Indeed, they are correct when they perceive that the vast American military power has no rival. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and powers such as Japan and the European Union not perusing military power, the US has no competition in terms of military resources. In fact, nearly all the worlds military budgets have declined apart from Americas. For example, in 2003, its budget was equal to 40% of the world’s total military spending, confirming its status as a military giant. However, does this equate to the US being classified as an empire? What grants the US its strike power is the sheer enormity of its