American “Freedom”

On page 48 of The Limits of Power, author Andrew Bacevich writes, “The truth is that the United States is engaged in an effort to incorporate Central Asia into the Pax Americana” (Bacevich), as in the overarching goal is to mold that section of the world into a vessel that will continue peace and prosperity in the United States. In this sense, the motivation behind foreign policy is clearer. Although Bin Laden and Hussein can be characterized as evil figures, the federal government is not concerned first and foremost with protecting the lives of people. Instead, the goal is to continue to foster the confidence that Jimmy Carter warned the US population of in 1979. Overconsumption and indulgence have become a staple of freedom…or perhaps it has even become what Americans consider freedom to be. Without the ability to be self-sufficient, the US has become dependent on foreign nations to supply our wants and needs here at home. So, the answer to the question of what drives foreign police, one glaring answer is one word: oil. In The Limits of Power, Bacevich examines how Reagan endorsed profligacy, calling him “the modern prophet of profligacy, the politician who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption” (Bacevich 36). This was in stark contrast to Carter’s warning of two paths, one toward dependency that would limit freedoms or one that would reinstate true American values. But Reagan, rather than urging his fellow Americans to make short-term cutbacks for long-term prosperity, “envisioned a future in which the United States would gain even greater power while Americans would enjoy ever greater prosperity” (Bacevich 37). This vision that Reagan preached dates back to the very origins of the United States itself. Bacevich illustrates the promises of the Jeffersonian trinity and our inalienable rights. But the rights promised in our constitution aren’t only meant to ensure freedom and the pursuit of happiness, the center “on a relentless personal quest to acquire, to consume, to indulge, and to shed whatever constraints might interfere with those endeavors” (Bacevich 16). In other words, our freedom is defined only by how much “more” we can attain, and “more” is only attainable with bountiful resources, something the United States does not have without dependence on foreign nations. This is how Bacevich shows that our values of freedom here on the homeland are connected to the empire abroad; we can no longer have the former without the latter. This has given “birth to a condition of profound dependency” (Bacevich 16). 

In my opinion, it is unlikely we will see an end to the “forever wars” because that would require the sacrifices that Jimmy Carter spoke of in his 1979 speech. The majority of Americans are not willing to give up certain “freedoms” that they think they have a right to. I noticed certain little examples of this American mindset when I was abroad. In Switzerland, people separate all of their trash. It takes a little time, but it’s much better for the environment. I cannot imagine an American sacrificing their precious time to separate banana peels from milk cartons and plastic wrappers. Another example is that in quite a few other countries, people shut off the water when they are showering when they aren’t actually using the water. I never hear the shower water turn on and off in the communal bathrooms in the residence halls (I’m even guilty of doing this, too). If we aren’t willing to give up the little “freedoms,” there is an unlikely chance that we’re giving up some of the bigger freedoms we think we have always been entitled to.