Bill Moyers Journal tonight: 'U.S. Imperial Presidency' with Andrew J. Bacevich

[babylonsister]

http://www.truthout.org/article/us-imperial-presidency

U.S. Imperial Presidency

by: Bill Moyers Journal, t r u t h o u t | Programming Note


PBS Airtime: Friday, August 15, 2008, at 9:00 p.m. EDT on PBS (check local listings here).

Is an imperial presidency destroying what America stands for? Bill Moyers sits down with history and international relations expert and former Army Col. Andrew J. Bacevich, who identifies three major problems facing our democracy - the crises of economy, government and militarism - and calls for a redefinition of the American way of life. "Because of this preoccupation with the presidency," says Bacevich, "the president has become what we have instead of genuine politics, instead of genuine democracy." Respected across the political spectrum, Bacevich has contributed to The Nation, The American Conservative and Foreign Affairs, among others. His latest book is "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism."

[SharonAnn]

1. Absolutely awesome show tonight! SB Required Viewing for all citizens.

[babylonsister]

2. Thanks! It just started here. nt

[babylonsister]

4. I'm listening; does he mention his son? Edit: yes. nt

[RedEarth]

3. ....from Tom's Dispatch..... Andrew Bacevich, The Lessons of Endless War

To the problem of an overstretched, over-toured military, there is but one answer in Washington. Both presidential candidates (along with just about every other politician in our nation's capital) are on record wanting to significantly expand the Army and the Marines. In his remarkable new book, The Limits of Power, The End of American Exceptionalism, Andrew Bacevich suggests a solution to the American military crisis that might seem obvious enough, if only both parties weren't so blinded by the idea of our "global reach," by a belief, however wrapped in euphemisms, in our imperial role on this planet, and by the imperial Pentagon and presidency that go with it: reduce the mission. It's a particularly timely observation to which Bacevich returns in part two of his TomDispatch series, adapted from his new book. (Click here for part one, "Illusions of Victory.")

Unfortunately, the mission looks all-too-ready to expand, no matter who makes it to the White House in January. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, increasingly being mentioned in the media as a possible carry-over appointment for either candidate, endorsed a $20 billion down payment on our future role in Afghanistan -- to be used to double the size of the Afghan army -- and a restructuring of the U.S. and NATO commands in that country. All of this is meant as preparation for a new president's agreement to consign yet more American troops to our war there. This, in a phrase Bacevich has used in another context, is no less "the path to perdition" for the globe's former "sole superpower" than was the decision of a small country in the Caucasus to essentially launch a war, no matter the provocation, against its energy-superpower neighbor. This way to the madhouse, ladies and gentlemen.

Consider, in this context, the immodest lessons our leaders have chosen to learn from the Bush era, and then, with Bacevich, what lessons we might actually learn if we seriously (and far more modestly) considered the real limits of American power. Tom


Is Perpetual War Our Future?
Learning the Wrong Lessons from the Bush Era
By Andrew Bacevich

To appreciate the full extent of the military crisis into which the United States has been plunged requires understanding what the Iraq War and, to a lesser extent, the Afghan War have to teach. These two conflicts, along with the attacks of September 11, 2001, will form the centerpiece of George W. Bush's legacy. Their lessons ought to constitute the basis of a new, more realistic military policy.

..........much more.......


http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174965/andrew_bacevich_the_lessons_of_endless_war

.......and.......

Andrew Bacevich, The American Military Crisis


Tomgram: Andrew Bacevich, The American Military Crisis
All you really need to know is that, at Robert Gates's Pentagon, they're still high on the term "the Long War." It's a phrase that first crept into our official vocabulary back in 2002, but was popularized by CENTCOM commander John Abizaid, in 2004 -- already a fairly long(-war-)time ago. Now, Secretary of Defense Gates himself is plugging the term, as he did in April at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, quoting no less an authority than Leon Trotsky:


"What has been called the Long War is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity. This generational campaign cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies. To paraphrase the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the Long War, but the Long War is interested in us."

The Long War has also made it front and center in the new "national defense strategy," which is essentially a call to prepare for a future of two, three, many Afghanistans. ("For the foreseeable future, winning the Long War against violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the U.S.") If you thought for a moment that in the next presidency some portion of those many billions of dollars now being sucked into the black holes of Iraq and Afghanistan was about to go into rebuilding American infrastructure or some other frivolous task, think again. Just read between the lines of that new national defense strategy document where funding for future conventional wars against "rising powers" is to be maintained, while funding for "irregular warfare" is to rise. The Pentagonization of the U.S., in other words, shows no sign of slowing down. Here, by the way, is the emphasis in the new Gates Doctrine -- from a recent Pentagon briefing by the secretary of defense -- that should make us all worry. "The principal challenge, therefore, is how to ensure that the capabilities gained and counterinsurgency lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the lessons re-learned from other places where we have engaged in irregular warfare over the last two decades, are institutionalized within the defense establishment." Back to the future?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/print/174964/Tomgram%253A%2520%2520Andrew%2520Bacevich%252C%2520The%2520American%2520Military%2520Crisis