Conservative Andrew Bacevich on the End of American Exceptionalism

I admire Mr. Bacevich, and I found this interview especially interesting in the wake of my recent Why We Fight...Conservatism article. Although I disagree with Mr. Bacevich's characterization of the word "conservative", his perspective on the Iraq War and his position on the Bush administration are very close to my own.

Hello Ms. Melony

The US might attain exceptionalism by a trait other than projecting military might.

Except that there are several countries that might beat us to it.

But my main concern is that the installation of alternative energy infrastructure would take years, maybe a decade. I worry that there simply isn't time to go forth with such an momentous task before the existing energy network becomes obsolete.

That is, of course, assuming that there were the will to do such a thing. The projection of military force described by Mr. Bacevich is, in my opinion, simply an extension of the effort to maintain the oligarchy's exclusive control over importing and selling energy resources and other fossil fuel derivatives. By the time these criminals are toppled (if such a thing is even possible) we will have run out of time.

I wish I could be more optimistic.

Hi Melony,

Thanks for your extensive and thoughtful commentaries. It's much appreciated.

I hope that you're right. The scenario you lay out is far more hopeful. But...

What are the consequences of the US loss of exceptionalism based on military force projection? I agree with the premise that this force is used to protect the oligarchies of the fossil fuels market (see US garrisons and global gas stations ). As the need to protect oil resources and distribution channels diminishes so too will the perceived need for global force projection.

I think, all things being equal, your prediction is quite reasonable. Market forces alone would bring your predictions about. But, to generalize, all things are not equal. I'm not saying that alternative energy systems and economies aren't feasible. They are, and right now. But there are other factors involved that make it problematic.

First, there probably isn't enough oil left to generate a slow transition to another paradigm. Even if there were, the moment that oil production is perceived to pass peak production (something that may have already happened), the price hikes associated with diminishing production will make the function of current Western economies impossible. Oil will be too expensive to be useful. The United States, especially, is utterly dependent on cheap, plentiful liquid fuel. Remove that supply for even a few months and it will have catastrophic effects.

This would be further exacerbated by shortages of other fossil fuel derivatives, including petrol-based fertilizers for farming, the supply of petrol-based plastics and petrol-based industrial chemicals.

Second, American cities are not centralized. They're spread out like military bases, making the toll on an alternative energy economy all the greater. You'd have to relocate millions from the suburbs and from the countryside into smaller, more compact urban areas, an enormous undertaking.

We needn't confront and topple these oligarchies. They will transition willingly (for example note BP's green outlook) given the appropriate clear vision, leadership and incentives or they'll remain stoic buggy whip makers to a diminishing market.

Third, the creation of an alternative energy infrastructure, however gradual, requires the use of the previously extant infrastructure, which is completely dependent on oil. No oil, no production, of either traditional or alternative infrastructure, at least until production capabilities adapt to the new paradigm.

Fourth, the problem with the entrenched oligarchy is that it is and has been artificially creating and conserving the current, oil-based economy for decades, and is determined to continue doing this. The war in Iraq is obviously a seizure of Iraq's oil assets, but less known is that the attack on Afghanistan was also an attempt to control an overland pipeline route that bypasses Iran.

Fifth, the assumption of a paradigm shift from traditional to alternative energy assumes the relative stability of economies, especially the American economy. Most of the world's cash reserves are enumerated in dollars, making an American economic collapse particularly scary, since it would also bring about enormous losses for every nation that has dollar investments. Nor can nations quickly shift to alternative currencies, since such a move would so further devalue the dollar as to render both current investments worthless and bring about an American economic collapse.

That said, the American economy is currently extremely unstable. It would be bad enough if the problem were simply an enormous national debt, a growing economic deficit and a gradually devalued dollar. BUT, we are facing a series of bad investments brought about by massive deregulation of American financial systems. The housing crisis is simply the first domino, and hasn't finished playing out yet. Similar crises exist with other lending sectors, like education loans and credit cards, where borrowers took on more debt than they could reasonably repay.

Further, there is a shrinking middle class, a removal of production capability to the developing world and a shift of service economy sectors to other parts of the world. The group of people that the rich would sell products to is shrinking, the service economy that the American nation has embraced is also outsourced and production capacity that would allow us to recover from economic stagnation is gone. We have no economic base. Our economy is running on stock market gambling, war, borrowed money and imported, second rate Chinese products.

To my mind, the question is not IF there will be an economic collapse but WHEN. And when that collapse occurs, those strengths that enabled our recovery at the end of the Great Depression have been systematically dismantled and exported.

Of course, it IS possible to avoid this, or to cushion the long-term effects, but that would require a mobilization of human capacity that would rival the Second World War for its size and complexity. We would have to blanket revoke most corporate charters, remove corporate person-hood from our legal code, seize and nationalize a large number of corporate assets, eliminate our massive intelligence apparatus, massively shrink the size of our military and transform our economy into a social-welfare-style technocracy, with heavy regulation, living wages, income caps and extensive public services. We'd have to completely rebuild our mass-transit system, encourage the creation of local food economies...a lot.

I'm not optimistic.

Bacevich also recently spoke with Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air.