The End of American Exceptionalism: Bacevich on Moyers

Sometimes there is an interview, an interviewee, and an interviewer that brings it all so tightly into focus. This is one of those moments. Bill Moyers -- who I've celebrated on this site before -- caught up with Boston University Professor of International Relations Andrew J. Bacevich, on a recent broadcast of Bill Moyers Journal.

I won't spend too much time dissecting Bacevich's eloquent and brilliant critique of American foreign policy, all of which is found in his book The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism. I just implore you to at least do what I did and watch the two-part interview.

Before any right or left knee-jerking ensues, note that Bacevich takes both political camps to task (questioning whether either Obama or McCain, for example, will bring substantive change to America's geopolitical center of gravity. The short answer: No). And he has a stinging indictment of the self-serving Democratic leadership of Pelosi and Reid. He asks all Americans to take a look at themselves, from support of the troops (beyond flag pins) to energy conservation. He draws clear lines of accountability from the general public directly to the halls of power. Bacevich never let's you easily and conveniently point the finger at rogue political leaders, showing them as part of the continuum that includes the American citizen.

And, offered up almost reluctantly, you learn of Bacevich's real life tragedy: the loss of his son, a soldier in Iraq, in 2007. He then reminds us of, and without a hint of condemnation, the obscenity of America sending troops on their third and fourth Mideast deployment while we at home merely "chill out."

Lastly, if you needed a more resounding assurance of what public television does right, this is it. And I doubt you could easily find a more studied and restrained agent of the socio-political introspection we desperately need.

Follow Raymond Leon Roker on Twitter: www.twitter.com/raymondroker

Comments

[Marlyn]

Andrew J. Bacevich says "The reason we are in Iraq today is because the Persian Gulf is at the center of the world's oil reserves. I don't mean we invaded Iraq on behalf of big oil. But the Persian Gulf region would have zero strategic significance were it not for the fact that that's where the oil is." ???

This is totally contradictory. YES we did invade Iraq on behalf of big oil.

[S1m0n]

"Oil" and "big oil" aren't synonyms, or rather there's an important distinction he's trying to draw. Yes, the US is there to control the oil. Yes, big oil will probably benefit greatly if this plan succeeds. No, obtaining that benefit wasn't why we're there. The US has a strategic end in mind that's not simply oil company profit.

[larry278]

As the late Walt Kelly had Pogo say, "We have met the enemy & he's us.". Didn't Thomas Merton write THE GUILTY BYSTANDER? A majority of America's voters re-elected Bush-Cheney in '04. That promped those of us who are guilty of being proressives to quote the late Dick Tuck to say, "The people have spoken, the bastards."­; now everybody agrees with the '04 UK tabloid headline after America's election, "How can so many be so stupid?". Maybe it's true that to be human is to err but America's voters over did it '04. It's galling to have to pay for somebody elses error(s). There is no balm in Gilead or America. All the neo-cons have is bomb, bomb Iran. That isn't atomic balm.

[mjt218]

Your comments presuppose that Kerry would have been a better choice than Bush/Cheney '04. I voted for and supported Kerry, but I do not have the ability to see into an alternate reality and gauge whether a Kerry presidency would put us in a better position moving forward than Bush/Cheney. You can just as easily make an argument the other way.

In fact, I think it's this kind of elitist attitude on the side of the left ("how could the country be so stupid to elect these guys?") that makes it so difficult for many Democrats to make up ground against Republican opponents. As a result, Kerry's debate performances were seen as smug, and Barack has to deal with the celebrity nonsense. I realize Democrats don't really need to turn every voter in the American heartland to win an election, but elitism definitely effects the undecided independents they really need to reach.

[bichn]

Great post and Moyers has a great show. Real journalism at its finest. I never miss his show.

[angryoldman]

Unfortunately, the "GREEN " party will still be in charge no matter who wins this time as usual. To put it simply, " MONEY TALKS AND BULL$%T WALKS". Once again we are faced with a choice of the lesser of two "evils" and it is obvious to me that OBAMA wins that contest , hands down. Americans are still not ready to make the the tough , real choices needed to put the brakes on the out of control IMPERIALISTIC, CORPORATE CONTROLLED ONANISTIC MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX controlled polity currently in charge in the USA.

[jhNY]

Agree wholehearetedly, and I'm no spring chicken my ownself!

[csc1962]

I almost never watch PBS, but I happened to be going thru the channels and saw Bill Moyers interviewing this obviously former military, very traditionally conservative man; somehow he blew me away. I usually go to bed at 9 PM and instead I was up until 10 PM.

In one sense it was depressing, since he pointed out that no matter who is elected this November, neither will really make any fundamental changes. Americans are not willing to make short term sacrifices for long term gain any more. And the more the "American dream" becomes harder and harder to obtain, the more we scream in denial that it cannot be obtained.

[ImmanuelKant]

I agree. Now we need to engage the national media. It was said the media didn't do a proper job in the run up to the war. If the media does not take Mr. Bacevich seriously and give him air time we all loose, as he speaks truth to power. Our Presidential candidates need to be confronted with their view of the "Imperial Presidency" and what they will do to reign it in.