WASHINGTON RULES

WASHINGTON RULES: America’s Path to Permanent War
Andrew J. Bacevich
Metropolitan Books, 2010
ISBN 978-0-8050-9141-0
Review by George R. Pasley

I’m not sure I’m glad I picked this book up, because it makes me very sad indeed.

Bacevich, a retired military officer now serving as professor of history and international relations at Boston University, chronicles American military policy since the end of World War Two. He does not paint a pretty picture.

Bacevich begins his chronicle with an account of sudden awareness that things were not what he had always thought them to be. This begins with the realization that the capabilities of our enemies were far less than we imagined- or were led to believe, and is compounded by a growing awareness that we are not as untainted as we like to believe.

Bacevich lauds Eisenhower for pointing out the powers and danger of the military-industrial complex, but criticizes him for not bringing them under control. He then shows how that complex has grown over the decades, and how it has always adjusted to failures (Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, etc) and changes in public opinion to maintain it’s grip on elected officials, the federal budget, and public priority.

After surveying the decisions of every president since Truman, Bacevich reaches Obama and describes his decision over Afghanistan: “Though the president’s national security team went through the motions of presenting him with a range of choices, the options actually on offer amounted to variations on a single theme…One option, of course, remained conspicuously ‘off the table’: getting out.” (p. 218)

Bacevich comes to a conclusion that ought to be embraced, considering the careful case he brings against it, that America has accepted a permanent state of war- yet viable options exist for something different.

Beginning with the premise that American clairvoyance is non-existent and that American power has its limits- in fact, that it is a “wasting asset”, Bacevich sets out a proposal that is not so much isolationist as it is no-interventionist. It is three pronged:

First, that the purpose of American military is not to combat evil, or to remake the world, but to defend America. Second, that the primary duty station of the American soldier is in America (an argument for reduced forces and for elimination of bases around the world). Third, “Consistent with the Just War tradition, the United States should employ force only as a last resort and only in self-defense.” (pp. 238-239)

Reading the book is like reading an indictment but it is good reading if we truly love our country and seek to love our neighbor.

George R. Pasley
September 18, 2010
Ketchikan, AK