The Great American Prerogative to Want More, More, More.

My first thought to this question: oil, oil, oil, and money, money, money. I was not too far from the truth–at least according to historian Andrew Bacevich. U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is centered around what Bacevich calls the “Global Pax Americana”: the American prerogative to establish and enforce norms governing international order, and to assert American global dominance over the “imperial periphery” (Bacevich). Essentially, American dominance abroad ensures “freedom” at home. The word “freedom” changes significantly in the post-WWII era; with a rise in consumerism and a booming economy, Americans equate freedom with consumption and individual autonomy—at the detriment of American national power. The insatiable American desire for more, more, more means that U.S. foreign policy must also be aggressive in securing resources (that greasy, slippery substance abundant in the Middle East) to secure “freedom” at home. According to Bacevich, the war on terror is pretty camouflage for America preserving a global order that sustains its domestic way of life (i.e., mass consumption). 

Despite President Jimmy Carter’s appeals to refocus American energies on “the underlying crisis of values,” the American public disagreed (or, as Bacevich puts it, they “shot the messenger”). President Ronald Reagan understood that Americans wanted self-gratification—not self-denial—and continued aggressive global campaigns in areas rich in resources. Reagan’s successors followed suit. Bacevich captures the connection between “freedom” at home and “empire” abroad nicely: “Freedom assumed abundance. Abundance seemingly required access to large quantities of cheap oil. Guaranteeing access to that oil demanded that the United States remove all doubts about who called the shots in the Persian Gulf. It demanded oil wars.”

I think Bacevich would argue that the U.S. could end these “forever wars,” but it would require a massive undertaking in reducing dependency on military force, accepting limits of global domination, and addressing the underlying symptom of mass consumption/consumerism. Interestingly, I think Pres. Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan (a withdrawal initially started by Pres. Trump) suggests that forever wars are unpopular, staggeringly expensive, and unnecessary. Yet, under the current administration, interventionist policies are gaining stem, with Pres. Trump calling for a “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, conducting airstrikes in Yemen, and proposing U.S. involvement in the Middle East. I would agree with Bacevich that ending forever wars requires rethinking what freedom means to Americans: is it buying, buying, buying, or is it addressing an “underlying crisis of values”? I believe it’s the latter.