Fifty-five years ago, Senator J. William Fulbright published his thought-provoking book “The Arrogance of Power” as a warning against the militarization of US foreign policy. US involvement in Vietnam was at the time just one year old and would last for another nine years. Its cost in lives, treasury and a demoralizing defeat was a stark validation of the book’s thesis. Alas, the same approach of military solutions would persist for the next fifty years with no different results. This time, this half century of misadventures has ended with the exit from Afghanistan.
Fulbright defined arrogance of power as “a psychological need that nations seem to have in order to prove that they are bigger, better, or stronger than other nations” and “the tendency of great nations to equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission.”
Of course, the overt and covert militarization of the US foreign policy has been motivated by more than a sense of virtue and universal responsibility. Various interests have pushed for the use of power for their own narrow purposes. Agricultural and extraction firms with business interests in authoritarian countries in Central and South America; the defense industry that stands to benefit from the sprawling US military presence and conflicts around the globe, despite President Eisenhower’s warning about the industrial-military complex; lobbyists of foreign countries who push for the use of military deterrence to protect their clients. Private defense contractors and consultants who benefit from the privatization of our national defense. Nonetheless, the most specious arguments for the military approach come from conservatives and liberals who believe that democracy and respect for human rights are exportable ideals, so much so, that it is acceptable even if they come on the trigger of a gun or, these days, the wings of a drone.
This brings up two questions. Is American exceptionalism an honest first instinct, which eventually mutates to the use of military power in pursuit of democracy and human rights abroad? Or is American exceptionalism the fig leaf that hides a more endemic preference for the use of military force in the conduct of foreign policy?
There are reasons to conclude the second possibility is more valid, at least more often. First, despite spending upward of $700 billion a year and maintaining 750 military bases in some 80 countries, American politicians and talking heads of mass media and think tanks try hard to convince us that our national security is at peril. They know they cannot succeed without throwing in democracy and human rights.
Second, let’s look at the gap between mouthed ideals and actual facts. Why support Latin American dictators if our goal is to promote democracy? Why communist China and Vietnam are acceptable partners but communist Cuba is not? Why accuse Biden for abandoning Afghan women when for decades we have ignored women’s rights in Saudi Arabia and other friendly countries? Why go after Hussein on bogus charges when almost all September 11 perpetrators were the product of the Saudi-sponsored Wahabi branch of Islamic fundamentalism?
In his book “After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in A World Transformed” Andrew Bacevich, a former Army officer, argues that American exceptionalism has inspired many foreign interventions in the name of democracy and human rights. But, he charges, this idealistic narrative excludes “disconcerting themes such as imperialism, militarism and the large-scale killing of noncombatants.” Furthermore, the most recent interventions have been ordered by presidents who either evaded the draft or, at any rate, never experienced the horror of war.
Of the many opinion pieces that have recently appeared after the Afghan exit debacle, the most scathing is that of Farah Stockman (The War on Terror Was Corrupt, NYT, 9/15/21). Stockman details the immense corruption of Afghan politicians and civilians as billions of dollars poured into the country. Instead of transforming and setting the Afghan economy and society on a self-sustained path, unaccountable siphoning of money to local operatives as well as American contractors and consultants turned Afghanistan into a “rentier state” (Stockman’s term), that is, a state dependent on the largess of its patron state.
Let’s go back to Fulbright words: “equate power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission.” My reading and understanding of history make me believe this is a particularly Western attitude borne of a sense of cultural and religious superiority. It’s not that non-Westerners (Islamists come to mind) have not acted on similar beliefs, but none has been as persistent and successful as the West. I am talking here about the belief that our values and ways of life comply with the highest ideals and forms of civilized societies and that we have a rightful duty to spread them to the rest of the world.
Early examples of the West’s successful effort to dominate the world stage – with the inevitable cultural transformations – include the Hellenistic kingdoms following Alexander’s destruction of the Persian empire and the even more successful Pax Romana. They were followed by the mission, not always by peaceful means, to Christianize Europe’s ethnic groups and the tortured Christianization of the indigenous people of the New World in the hands of the Conquistadors. Likewise, colonialism, borne out of commercial interests, became the instrument of cultural and religious transformation imposed on indigenous people in Africa and Asia.
Viewed in this historical context, American exceptionalism is indeed the descendant of a long Western tradition of exporting culture and religion along economic and administrative systems to other people. With few exceptions, we have learned that the Western model is not always transferable. Instead, it has given risen to many failed states and civil frictions. The disappointing results come because the West insist telling others to live with what works for the West but not necessarily for the rest of the World.
At least one notable Westerner has realized this. This person is none other than Pope Francis who recently criticized Western involvement in Afghanistan saying it showed the flaws of exporting Western values while also decrying the atrocities committed in the name of faith. Coming from South America himself, the Pope’s comments echo the despair of those ancient indigenous people who saw their ways of life being erased in the name of a responsibility to spread what the West assumes to be universal values.
Let's Reason 