U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, I believe, can be traced back a couple of lines. Between the policies of Roosevelt in the early 1900s and the economic needs of America at the time of the Iraq war starting, and a sprinkling of Bush’s belief in America needing a rallying cry, you’ve got a recipe for starting wars in foreign lands that still persist to this day. Bacevich insists that the persisting wars abroad and relative freedom at home are intertwined and stem from a cause that isn’t fighting terrorism abroad.
After September 11th, America entered a bit of a crisis and lost its sense of identity and togetherness, which seemed to have been developing since the 1990s. Busch noticed this crisis of conscience and acted upon it with his now-famous speech, calling for America to band together, mentioning Psalm 23, and outlining a plan to “find those responsible and bring them to justice.” Bacevich, like many, noticed how this brought the country together, saying “Freedom is the altar at which Americans worship, whatever their nominal religious persuasion” (Bacevich 5). This urge for a national identity, promises of oil, and continuation of Rooseveltian “Big Stick” diplomacy come together to create a large “justifiable” cause to invade Iraq and Iran going after Hussein and Bin Laden. The reasoning behind my argument that it’s a continuation of Roosevelt’s diplomatic policy is mostly due to the US now having troops and embassies across the world and trying to expand that office into the Middle East at the time, not necessarily “speaking softly” but most certainly carrying “a big stick” to the area.
Bacevich’s idea that freedom at home and empire abroad are connected ties to freedom not being benign nor static, and requiring constant kindling. American freedom has necessitated an “other” dating back to Great Britain and the Revolutionary War, and our penchant for fighting against what we believe is wrong stems from the same period. He mentions a quote from Bush that highlights this perfectly: “the ‘survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.'” (Bacevich 10) Based on this quote, it seems we’ll be locked in forever wars to maintain liberty within our borders.
The idea of being locked in a “forever war” is both real and potentially much more likely than many would like to admit. If we’re willing to count it, we’ve already been stuck in a conflict at the Korean border for over 70 years, more than an entire generation. With the way Iraq and Iran have been treated over the last few decades, it appears to be going the same way. Despite all of this, there appears to be less and less liberty inside our borders, so that leaves two possibilities: either we need a more active conflict to ensure the survival of liberty in our lands, or Bush was incorrect with his quote and we need to rethink the idea of being locked in wars for the rest of our nation’s lifetime.
Will Wright 