A fundamental problem that Christopher Preble addresses in his book is the mentality behind the eager-minded management of the military. We underlie disparagement towards every country that we presume to spread democracy to, by suggesting that we, the United States, are the overseer of a form of government that we ourselves cannot seem to completely manifest at home. Preble writes of the “sheriff” perspective that the manipulative captains of the military undertake, thus creating a hegemonic elitism that has become the focus of the goals in the US. Colin Powel’s response to the statement, ‘What’s the point of having this superb military that [Colin Powel’s] always talking about if we cant use it?’ with, ‘American GIs were not toy soldiers to be moved around on some global game board’” struck upon the seduction of utilization when supplied with a formidable military (Preble vii). As Madeleine Albright said earlier, if the US has the means to immediately ensure our goals with a bellicose manner, the government will we use it too much and too quickly. We are overexerting ourselves in the investment of the mentality of the American Sheriff ofthe World, when we (clearly) are not. We are just another country amongst others that exist within the global scale. Our famous founding father, George Washington, said, “those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty” (Preble ii). America is not a vanguard of democracy, I mean, look around… is this the Garden of Eden that is promoted as the face of a democratic nation?
Currently the US is lost in a sea of frenzy over the security of the American peoples; but there are many more problems at home threatening the safety of Americans, than the ones that are blasted from the media and government as striking from wings of terrorism. The People are facing rising unemployment, civil unrest, an increasing wealth gap, failing morale, and all-around ignorance. What of these few listed issues were caused directly by the interjection of the (9/11) “terrorists”? Answer: these issues are rooted in the inappropriately cursory glances of the government towards its people and its unnecessarily extended gazes at the national goal of imperiously spreading democracy. Deborah Stone talks about the different components that have allowed for the American “way of life” to digress so much. She argues that misleading symbols, ill-routed inducements, primitive interests, ambiguous causal stories, and an unseemly compulsion for efficiency, are the true culprits to blame. Through the consideration of Stone’s list of obstacles, the hurdle Preble posits elucidates as the standard of policy for electing military engagement/involvement needing to be more stringent. Therefore, the goal of managing the military should be redirected to only ensure the physical security of the People, and furthermore, maintain our Lockean proclamation of the (peaceful) nature of man, allowing other countries to step forward, for themselves, towards the manifestation of (true) democracy (Preble 12, 7).
The elected representatives to Office are beguiling its Peoples into following its double-sided policies and directions in hopes of securing the physical safety that constitutes the foundational aspect of the “American (free)way”. This American way is nobly upheld by the blood and sweat of military men and women on the front lines of danger and death, but it is not the only way to ensure security. We have forgotten that. Preble calls upon the lesson of the Cold War—that an overwhelming focus and priority on the military isn’t the way to a flourishing community of people (Preble 3). But the People are coaxed into compliance by inducements, such as reward and sanction, which auto-navigate the target American into accepting the (new) status quo. Such an example would be the almost-forced nationalistic pride being directly correlated to the military; there is an underlying reward of acceptance and public pride in promoting or participating in the military and a silent sanction issued to those for anti-patriotic acts or remarks. Through the manipulation of well-laid sanctions and even better laid rewards, the government has seized control of the self-interest of the People, swiveling it in the direction as dictated by our ignorant fear-fed threats of war and bullish symbolic right to freedom.
A nation is not a community; it is too large. A community is defined as a group of people that live together in one place, they share a commonality in the situation of living; this can be summed up in the concept of the “uni-mind”#. In a community of people, there is a prioritization of the community’s interests over the causes of others; they mainly operate in a mentality that marks them as belonging to a certain region or district, the mark of the presence of the “uni-mind”. In a nation, the common ground becomes too diverse and filled with circumstantial variables to properly collect the inhabitants into a predominant collective mind state. Today, we can look around and see the division between neighbor and neighbor. But in order to address all of the interests, as a true democracy would demand, the government tries to group the people into simple factions of interests.
“Interests are the active side effects [of politics] …but do not become important until they are translated into demands”; suggesting that if you know the demand, you know the interest, and therefore, you have an area for manipulation. There are technically two arenas of manipulation, the objective interest and the subjective interest; the objective interests are the effects that affect the people regardless of their awareness, and subjective interests are the things that people consciously believe to affect them (Stone 210, 211). Ultimately, the two interests are intrinsically connected, and together, uphold a sense of balance. I recall a maxim regarding the wings of a butterfly having the ability to cause climate changes on the other side of the planet—everything is connected and as such can be interplayed against one another. By plucking at small simple interests, the government is able exploit and maneuver the Americans into dividing themselves into bickering divided cliques, i.e. the repeated disruption of war-ending affairs with extremely flammable issues of abortion, universal health care, and celebrity sensationalism. This is our current state of affairs.
Hence, because we are wholly unable to operate in the mentality of a (localized) community, we are inadvertently incited into a militant reaction and the fundamental interest has been epitomized as an interest of survival. A past president, Teddy Roosevelt, petitioned the “big stick” policy, which ironically thought the use of a Machiavellian “stick” in the hopes of a peaceful union. This is a quick and un-evolved solution. It was in our predecessor’s disposition to thwack and threaten with a weapon until he gets what he wants, but as the sophisticated creatures that have largely dominated the contemporary natural world, that methodology is found wanting. But we the People do not recognize this degradation because, as Stone points out, we are sold into alluring causal stories that dictate blame and responsibility for the current situation.
For example, after the 9/11 incidents, the American government marked the kamikaze terrorists as falling into the “intended” and “purposeful” sections of Table 8.1. (Stone 191). Since then, there have been overwhelming conspiracy theories surfacing from such a direct focus of blame on terrorists only. (They say it takes two to tango.) By suggesting that someone/something is to blame, as well the event happening at home, there is a, seemingly, underlying preface of “deliberate but concealed human action” (Stone 191). Such misinformation or lack thereof, does not play upon the cohesion and togetherness of a community, but rather on the division and disfigurement of it. By suggesting that there is a clandestine element to the attack, the unknowing public become prey to hysteria, susceptible to persuasion, and radicalized in opinion. We become the perfect compliant audience for pro-military manipulation, as seen through the proliferation of the “support our troops” stickers and wristbands and the decline of high school and college graduates.
The difference between Americans and America is that American are represented as a united community under one mentality, when in actuality, the Bill of Rights inadvertently creates the (notable) differences in mind and body between every American. The maintenance of America allows the American to be different, to not feel constrained within our realm of social freedom. Saying its in our honor, our elected officials pose like dueling cowboys when realistically speaking, the individual average American isn’t so much dealing with impending war issues, with allowances of the federally/militarily involved, as much as with the day-to-day obstacles of inflated gas prices, superficial confidence, and the numbering unlettered. Preble argues that the rights of the Americans should be protected for the sake of the Americans’ liberty, but not when it is manufactured at the expense of smaller pieces of liberty for a goal that seems unreachable.
Preble questions the opportunity cost in the prioritization of a military power, in lieu of other powers, such as culture, arts, sciences, humanities, etc. He highlights the Machiavellian efficiency that the military instigates in pursuit of its goals, as Stone dissects the paradoxical policies that dictate the (corroborating) problems, goals, and solutions in America. Most assuredly, the military is a means to an end not an end in itself. Its main function is to protect the People that uphold what is the United States, but is instead being used for “greater” opportunities. All opportunities come with a silent and intrinsic cost, which Preble focuses on and Stone substantiates is the cost of the American people’s (overall) natural development. The government has challenged, and we have accepted, to allow for the family to disintegrate, the brain to deteriorate, the heart to degenerate, and the hands to be come idle, in exchange for (the attempt of) world domination. All that binds Americans currently are the red ropes of the opportunistic cost in spreading democracy abroad when the homestead itself is aching for democracy. This is true, that the military cannot guarantee a flourishing sovereign state, try as they might. And so one wonders, what is the point of having such a strong protective wall, if there is nothing of (veritable) value behind it?
The books referenced in this entry are:
The Power Problem: How American military dominance makes us less safe, less prosperous, and less free by Christopher Preble
The Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision-making by Deborah Stone
