by Zack Beauchamp
Michael Few interviews (pdf) Stephen Glaim, author of a new book on the militarization of American foreign policy called State Vs. Defense:
The culprit behind American militarization is domestic politics and those who would use foreign policy as a means of settling parochial scores. Thus McCarthyism, having emasculated and demoralized the nation’s diplomatic core, left the country with no one to debunk the canard of a Sino-Soviet bloc, the irrational fear of which consumed security planners and red-baiters alike until as late as 1968, when Russian and Chinese troops were skirmishing along the Ussuri River. Another enabler of militarization is the habitual failure among American leaders to listen to their area experts – diplomats, military attaches and spies – about the nature of threats perceived or concocted by political tribes in Washington. While researching the book I was struck at how often the White House, having neglected its eyes and ears on the ground, not only reached for the military option but in doing so foreclosed on opportunities for a lasting peace.
Glaim doesn't appear to be a fan of American global power projection, but his argument should be taken as seriously by those who are. If we accept that the ultimate justification of global hegemony is that it's net better for the world (on cosmopolitan moral grounds) than alternative available options, it's as, if not, more important to critique horrific abuses of power (see Vietnam and Iraq Wars, The) as it is to defend the need to maintain that power itself. Further, overreliance on the military also undermines U.S. influence in the long run, for reasons that are well-known and don't really need to be rehashed here.
(Photo: Jason Freeny's exhibit "Think Tank.")
The Dish 