Even as Fervent a Military Supporter as I Am Should Be Concerned about the Unquestioning Militarism that the United States Engages In — Penetrating Thoughts from History Professor Mark LeVine on President Obama’s Mistakenly Framed State of the Union Speech

© 2012 Peter Free

 

26 January 2012

 

 

First, a definition of “militarism”

 

Militarism, as I use it, means the expansionist and ethically overaggressive use of military force, the glorification of war, and/or the control or near-control of State policy by military leaders.

 

I do not mean the maintenance of a military, suitably sized and equipped, to successfully further national interests, as those are defined by people without special interest axes to grind.

 

 

Militarism, as I have defined it, is bad for freedom

 

I have been a determined critic of America’s strength-draining militarism for years. Here, for example.

 

I’m with Professor/Colonel Andrew Bacevich — whose writings I recommend to anyone concerned about the United States’ increasingly self-destructive political and economic directions.

 

 

President Obama’s State of the Union speech intentionally or inadvertently furthered the excesses of American militarism by implicitly suggesting that the military should be a model for domestic politics and policies

 

Two days ago, during his State of the Union speech, President Obama had the thoughtless (or cynical) temerity to imply that the United States should conceptually expand militarism’s basis to embrace the entirety of the American experience.

 

The following is an excursion into the unappreciated nuances that separate this nation’s alternative routes to (a) freedom and success or (b) economic serfdom and failure.

 

 

"Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed [the military’s] example,” said the President in his State of the Union speech

 

I can.  Not much of it is good outside the warrior, duty, and honor context.

 

President Obama’s State of the Union speech intentionally deflected criticism of his political policies by focusing on the military’s courageous and honorable conduct as an example to the rest of us.  In the narrow sense, he was merely saying that integrity and duty to mission are things that domestic society should emulate.

 

However, as is sadly characteristic, the President allowed the context of the speech to expand the narrow meaning of his “imagine” question to one that takes the nation in the wrong direction:

 

"We gather tonight knowing that this generation of heroes has made the United States safer and more respected around the world."

 

© 2012 Mark LeVine, State of the Union: Will the US be saved by its military? Al Jazeera (25 January 2012)

 

On its face, this statement seems to be a partially supportable and politically harmless observation.

 

But, in reality, it is not — given the bleeding this nation has been doing for at least 10 years and the likelihood that we’re going to do more of the same for generations to come.

 

 

Professor Mark LeVine’s on-target critique of the President’s misleading thinking

 

History professor Mark LeVine took some pungently accurate stabs at the obtuseness of the President’s observations, as they apply to human society generally and to American culture in particular:

 

Does the President really believe that the United States is more respected around the world because of its military activities?

 

"Imagine what we could accomplish if we followed their example."

 

Yes, imagine - a country that takes hundreds of thousands of its young men and women, puts them in harm's way for the benefit of a small elite, doesn't provide them with an economy that can absorb them when they've completed their service, doesn't provide them with adequate healthcare, doesn't deal with the emotional and physical costs of the violence it asks them to unleash and suffer, and thinks not a whit about the people on whom that violence is exercised.

 

Whether in Caesar's day or our own, militaries do three things well –

 

they kill large numbers of people, including (and often disproportionately) civilians;

 

they arrogate an ever-increasing share of a society's wealth to themselves and their allies;

 

and they weaken the dynamics of accountability between rulers and ruled without which democracy cannot survive.

 

© 2012 Mark LeVine, State of the Union: Will the US be saved by its military? Al Jazeera (25 January 2012) (paragraph split and reformatted)

 

 

Before “you” run off angry, think about what LeVine said — isn’t it historically true?

 

I began my education as a historian — so, despite my rabid allegiance to military concepts of duty, honor, integrity, and sacrifice — I recognize the accuracy of LeVine’s critique of overly large militaries and the states molded to support them.

 

His statements about militarism’s negatives are beyond debate, provided that one pays attention to evidence, rather than unthinking biases.  Which is why America’s Founders took a dim view of war generally, a standing army in particular, and President Dwight Eisenhower warned us against the growing power of the military-industrial complex in January 1961.

 

Consequently, President Obama’s implied embrace of militarism as a model for the American future is (or should be) disturbing.

 

 

In national policy, the more concealed nuances are, the more they tend to matter

 

As Professor LeVine implied, if the President is unwilling to confront the financial and ethical problems posed by America’s use of its military forces around the world — and the special interest mindsets that fuel our imperialism — he is unlikely to foster the change that we need in order to overcome the excesses of capitalism and nationalism that caused the current recession.

 

 

The moral? — Thoughtless “rah-rah” rhetoric can harm the accuracy of national self-perception

 

When we forget the larger context, and how we got to it, we lose our sense of national direction.

 

The President’s State of the Union message intentionally or inadvertently misled Americans about the harmful aspects that militarism poses American freedom.  His implied suggestion that we psychologically expand a militaristic national model demonstrates failed leadership.

 

Acting honorably is what the President should have been driving at.

 

Unfortunately, his behavior — and the jingoistic rah-rah-ism of his speech — are its antithesis.

 

The President has not modeled honor, duty, integrity, and sacrifice during his tenure.  Which makes his call to embrace military values hypocritical.  The President’s implication that militarism is a good thing is a dangerous, nationally destructive, and very short-sighted political gambit.

 

Military values themselves critique the President’s manipulative use of them in his State of the Union message.