Bacevich Doing What He Does Best

Andrew Bacevich: "Few Americans are willing to acknowledge the imperial motives that have long shaped this country’s global policies."https://t.co/en1vvmIKLQ

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) December 31, 2020

Much on Display Here

Don't give to Responsible Statecraft/Quincy Institute. They are not friends of the American peoples.

David Petraeus @CarnegieEndow event: the most significant terror threat in US is not from Islamists but from right wing extremists. WATCH: https://t.co/vzIQX9ap66

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) December 2, 2020

About to check in with @QuincyInst President Andrew Bacevich as he talks endless wars with David "Surge" Petraeus in @CarnegieEndow event. LIVE: https://t.co/vzIQX9ap66

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) December 2, 2020

.@QuincyInst Andy Bacevich @CarnegieEndow event: it seems to me we have to acknowledge the failure of this military undertaking first, then we will be able to explore more prudent, diplomatic alternatives for Afghanistan. WATCH: https://t.co/vzIQX9ap66

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) December 2, 2020

Quincy Institute Discussion of the Military and Peaceful Transitions of Power

Did you miss it? Check out this great @QuincyInst discussion about the military, a possible contested election, and cities getting ready for protests. WATCH : https://t.co/MRC7rLLGAN pic.twitter.com/PqDE2M8FXS

— Quincy Institute (@QuincyInst) October 29, 2020

A Peaceful Transition of Power?

What role should the military play--if it all--in a seriously contested election after Nov 3? Join QI's Andrew Bacevich, veterans @AmberSmithUSA & @MarkHertling & moderator @VlahosAtQuincy in what has become an unusual debate. WED 10/28 2p.m. Details: https://t.co/DhYPxT646L

— Responsible Statecraft (@RStatecraft) October 22, 2020

The Limitations of Andrew Bacevich

Bacevich may be good on what the US should be doing with respect to its foreign policy (and reining in the MIC), but he seems to be clueless about the (D)s and the (R)s. Trump may be unsatisfactory for Bacevich, but the truth is probably that Trump can do very little to bring about the goals Bacevich wants. The (R)s will never adopt Bacevich's platform, and even if the (D)s might vocally talk about defunding the MIC, they'll never do it either.

Andrew Bacevich: Republicans can make good use of a Biden presidency to detoxify, purging themselves of the poisons ingested when they drank deeply of the polluted waters of Trumpism. https://t.co/nVnEzLOBGm

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) October 6, 2020

Empire Is as Ampire Does

Embedded in the seemingly benign phrase “American global leadership” is a grand strategy of militarized primacy, writes Andrew Bacevich. The turmoil in Afghanistan and Iraq prove that its results have been anything but benign.https://t.co/p0IBqb6LIL

— Foreign Affairs (@ForeignAffairs) September 20, 2020

Andrew Bacevich's Contribution

"E.F. Schumacher was right: small is beautiful. On that score, conservative stewardship should include an emphasis on localism, craftsmanship, and the principle of subsidiarity." https://t.co/n58ZTDy2is

— The American Conservative (@amconmag) August 8, 2020

I agree with the excerpt but I think subsidiarity needs to be re-thought.

The Quincy Institute

Bacevich again fails to mention Israel at all in spite of that country’s enormous influence over the U.S. electoral process through the political donations provided by dual loyalty billionaires Adelson & Haim Saban to Republicans & Democrats respectively. https://t.co/GcuOJMHOxq

— Philip Giraldi (@philipgiraldi) July 28, 2020

Bacevich has clearly indicated that there will be red lines, that the @QuincyInst won’t focus on highlighting pro-Israel orgs or donors. In other words, it will not criticize Israel’s Lobby as a driving element in America’s interventionist foreign policy. https://t.co/aT6fRxqBDw

— Philip Giraldi (@philipgiraldi) July 28, 2020

Bacevich's Collection of "Conservative" Writings

Interview with Andrew Bacevich.

There's actually more than one neocon: Michael Novak is included, and Fr. Neuhaus is a neocon-sympathizer. No paleoconservatives, though James Burnham is included. Straussian Jaffa is also included. If this is "American conservatism," then I'm out.

Andrew Bacevich

The Forgotten Lesson of Black Hawk Down

Two for Memorial Day

AmConMag:

On Memorial Day, Getting Beyond ‘Thank You For Your Service’ by John Q. Bolton
What veterans need is an engaged public—one that even scrutinizes the military, and the policies that send them overseas.

Why You Should Read These Military Classics by Andrew Bacevich
They tell us much about service life and futile imperial adventures.

Andrew Bacevich on Darkest Hour

Learning from Churchill

Robert E. Lee at West Point

Andrew Bacevich

I had suspected that Bacevich has a nationalist understandingn of the American system and identity, rather than a federalist one.

Two Views on the Current USMC Scandal

Fat Leonard and the Decline of Military Values By Andrew J. Bacevich
The officer corps was once assumed to be above larger cultural rot. No more.

William Lind: The View From Olympus: The Women Problem (Again)

I think AmConMag put this up only a few days before the election

I was going to put a link on last Monday but then the week happened. Here it is, their regular symposium on the presidential election.

Gold Star Families

While the name itself may be associated with something going back to World War I, "Gold Star" has modern associations that may lead to the name being seen as patronizing or trivializing the death of a loved one serving in the armed forces. (After all, we give gold stars to kindergarten students.)

If a family realizes that their loved ones died in vain, in service of furthering the goals of the American Empire and not in defense of patria, how will they react? Would this be an honor or recognition they would wish to receive? What does Andrew Bacevich really think of the honor?

Andrew Bacevich's Counterculture Conservatism

TAC

He provides a "national" platform, but is it possible to inroduce it within the Republican Party? Why would either party go against the wishes of the oligarchy?

Andrew Bacevich on the First Amendment

God and Country

Will he be a regular contributor to FPR?

Anyway, would there be such a problem if the Federal national military were not such a large institution? If we still followed the Constitution and recognized that the states have the right to "establish" church, along with the stipulation that the states would provide for the bulwark of defense through their military units, would this be such a problem?

Even with a national military that is limited in size, what do we do about its members' spiritual needs? This could officially be left to the states or the established churches of the states? Or to independent churches or ecclesial communities ministering to the members. (At present, our military chaplains have to be under the authority of the military, for whatever reason, and hence the necessity of the Archdiocese of the Military?)

Andrew Bacevich on the Republican Party

After Romney: Republican Soul-Searching

Dr. Bacevich suggests how the Republican Party can reform:

If the Republican Party wishes to represent a conservative perspective, it should advance a serious critique of American culture and then derive authentically conservative economic and foreign policies from that critique.

What might that mean? Several things:

First, conservatives should claim the environmental movement as their own. Preserving the natural world should be a cause that all conservatives embrace with gusto. And, yes, that includes the issue of climate change.

Second, conservatives should lead the way in protecting the family from the hostile assault mounted by modernity. The principal threat to the family is not gay marriage. The principal threats are illegitimacy, divorce, and absent fathers. Making matters worse still is a consumer culture that destroys intimate relationships, persuading children that acquiring stuff holds the key to happiness and persuading parents that their job is to give children what the market has persuaded them to want.

Third, when it comes to economics, conservatives should lead the fight against the grotesque inequality that has become such a hallmark of present-day America.

Call me old fashioned, but I believe that having a parent at home holds one of the keys to nurturing young children and creating strong families. That becomes exceedingly difficult in an economy where both parents must work just to make ends meet.

Flattening the distribution of wealth and ensuring the widest possible the ownership of property can give more parents the choice of raising their own youngsters rather than farming the kids out to care providers. If you hear hints of the old Catholic notion of distributism there, you are correct.

Finally, when it comes to foreign and national security policies, conservatives should be in the forefront of those who advocate realism and modesty. Conservatives should abhor the claims of American dominion that have become such a staple of our politics. Saving humanity is God’s business, not America’s.

Does he realize that the Republican Party in its origins is not the "conservative" party but the party of the rich? Hence its early embrace of feminism? Illegitimacy, divorce, and absent fathers - the breakdown of patriarchy. Have the Christian ecclesial communities failed in capitulating to a divorce culture? Yes. Even if we agitate for changes to divorce laws and the like, can we succeed in the face of those who are content with the system as it is? Dr. Bacevich may refrain from advocating that women be homemakers and mothers to their children, but how many women will really be satisfied with a man who takes upon this role? I agree that having at least one parent home is necessary for family health, but feminism is opposed to this, and the Republican Party will not repudiate feminism -- just look at the examples of McCain and Romney.

American Conservative Symposium on the Election

The Conservative Vote: A Symposium

PJB voices his opinion here. Daniel Larison adds some personal notes, and he also has this post: Replacing the Congressional GOP’s Leadership.