Review: The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory by Andrew Bacevich
A smart man wrote this book, but he could have done better
In 2004 The Boston Red Sox finally won the World Series. We native Bostonians had thought ourselves a cursed tribe, as we continued to wait till next year with little hope. When it did happen, it was a now what? moment.
Boston radio personality, Jess Cain, analogized it to if Captain Ahab defeated the Great White Whale. Ahab would have gone from a man with a purpose to just a guy with a ship full of blubber.
There it was, subsequent Sox championships had far less meaning, if any, for us now.
At the beginning of Andrew Bacevich's The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War Victory, the author notices something a bit similar. The main character of John Updike's Rabbit series of novels asks the question, "Without the Cold War, what's the point of being an American?"
As a member of the Baby Boomer Generation, like Bacevich, your reviewer can attest it was, at times, an all-consuming struggle reported for decades in American media. Indeed, it was expected to never end.
I remember the feeling of relief the day the Soviet Union gave up the ghost.
It should've led to an era of peace and amity. It didn't, not even close. The Age of Illusions chronicles what happened?
The end of the Cold War was taken to be the victory of liberal capitalism over a communist form of government. Our system was vindicated and in the words of policy analyst Francis Fukuyama, it was "The End of History?" Notice the question mark at the end of his title.
The American Nation was now the guardian of a new world order and it would be tested soon enough in the Gulf War. George Bush would oversee a victory that, despite some predictions of a hard campaign, was over quickly. It looked good.
Bacevich, despite a reputation of being skeptical of American over projection of power, seemed to like and respect Bush père, "In declaring that Saddam's annexation of Kuwait "will not stand," and put to rest nagging suspicions that he was a wimp…"
Bacevich would note Bush's loss to Bill Clinton despite the victory that led to sky high ratings. Bush did not articulate a vision, and the author notes that he abandoned his no new taxes pledge, but does not give as much weight to that as he might have.
If, during his campaign, Bush had said that he opposed new taxes, it would have been one thing. Saying "read my lips" to emphasize his pledge that he could not be turned and then wimping insulted his voters.
As to the Gulf War as victory, it was a defeat even though it did not look to be one. After the supposed end we spent over a decade sanctioning and bombing that country to little good effect. The perpetrators of 911 cited infidel troops in Saudi Arabia, the Land of the Two Holy Mosques as casus belli.
Andrew Bacevich is Professor Emeritus of International Relations and History at Boston University. He has held many other distinguished posts and has written several other books and authored numerous magazine articles.
In 2019, Professor Bacevich became president of the Quincy Institute For Responsible Statecraft. In the August, 2019 issue of this magazine, your reviewer cautiously applauded the new organization. The funding was provided by two famous plutocrats, George Soros and Charles Koch who are not known to be on the same page ideologically, and are suspect in many circles.
Nevertheless, in following the Quincy Institute, it is hard to find anything untoward, and under the Bacevich presidency it has been doing a good job of calling for, as one would hope, "responsible statecraft." Sadly, the state is not listening as well as it should.
As the head of what is, I believe, a serious organization, he cannot go overboard in what he says and writes. One is called on to be measured.
Thus, it is what he does not say that is bothersome.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the Bush administration called on the Iraqi people to rise up against the Hussein regime. The people responded and the insurgency saw no little success. Aid from the coalition never materialized and the uprising was left twisting in the wind.
Noting this may not even be germane to this book, but there is a pattern at work of intervening and causing mayhem. That certainly speaks to our post-cold war squandering.
Bacevich acknowledges it, sort of, in the Balkans under Clinton. He writes "we had to act." Also, "Unknowingly, Clinton was nudging the United States down a path toward permanent war…"
Did Clinton really have to intervene in the Former Yugoslavia? If it is necessary that American presidents continue to call themselves "leader of the Free World,", then taking action might be might be required. Or, maybe the title can be retired.
Clinton was a smart guy, and not ignorant of history. He probably knew what Bismarck, the chancellor who reunited Germany said of the region, “The Balkans aren't worth the life of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” The Pomeranian grenadier was a German soldier held in general contempt. We should have thought better of the lives of the five men we lost in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The author writes a paragraph that leaves out something really important: "Clinton's support for NATO’s eastward expansion to Russia's very borders persuaded Kremlin leaders that Washington's intentions were anything but benign…"
The previous administration had promised Gorbachev that in return for the reunification of Germany in NATO, NATO itself would never be expanded “one inch eastward” toward Russia. The Russians had every reason to see US policy more than just not benign, but having the appearance of being aggressively imperialistic.
Your reviewer hoped the president of the Quincy Institute would have had more detailed information as to the post-cold war raison d'etre of The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but other than mentioning Trump's threat to quit the alliance and noting our obligation to defend all 29 member states, there is little in The Age of Illusions.
Professor Bacevich liked President Obama, but was not blind to his faults. In succeeding George W. Bush, the 44th president would have his hands full with a bad economy and a couple of ongoing wars. He would have his successes, but they would not be permanent.
Whatever his thoughts on other presidents, he does not like Trump. This is a major and recurring part of his book. The Donald is an easy target and not just because he set himself up. In his antipathy toward the 45th president, the author sets himself up.
When Trump came into office, someone told me they did not like Trump because he wasn't "presidential." I asked if he thought George W. Bush was presidential, and he rose to the bait. Continuing the interrogation, the next question was, did starting a war on what was not valid grounds leading to many deaths "presidential." There was a little fancy footwork and your reviewer did not pursue the hunt, but essentially this is it.
On Page 170, the Professor waxes poetic about the 2016 Democratic candidate:
"That Hilary Clinton was infinitely more qualified to serve as president than Donald Trump is inarguably the case. She had earned a shot at the top job in ways that Trump had not. She was a tested professional; he was a gate-crashing interloper, richly deserving of the invective to which he was subjected by members of his own party."
In the paragraph above he marked himself as a supporter of, if not a member of team elite. This in spite of inventorying many of her faults in the next few pages.
He notes the folly of Libya and Secretary Clinton's authorship, but why would that not be a disqualification for the highest office?
Trump has been involved in needless deaths in the Middle East, if only because he is continuing, to a great extent, the policies of predecessors. In that, he has much to answer for, but the Trump as supreme devil as a trope was overdone, and, to a Bacevich fan (c'est moi) disappointing.
Indeed, in the American Conservative of February 10, 2021 he has a piece, "After 20 Years, The Establishment Is Still In Denial About Afghanistan," and that title says it all. The Bacevich article is dead on about the delusional policy elite that do not want to honor the withdrawal agreement negotiated by the Trump administration.
Toward the end of a book, he suggests an answer to Rabbit's question, climate change. In this, he marks himself as a believer, as the question of Miami being underwater is, for the Professor not an if but a when.
Our "City on a Hill" might want to reassert world leadership on climate change.
Your reviewer recently read an article by economic writer Mike Shedlock: "Let's Review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened." As a basis for a secular jihad, the author's idea leaves something to be desired. Still, as it is so open-ended, the rallying cry might work for a while.
Your reviewer believes we should be cognizant of our environment (he is an organic gardener), and policy should be responsible, but as the so-called War on Terror has been long and with little to show for it, maybe we want to be careful before embarking on a new crusade.
A better cause, and one not addressed much these days would be mitigating our confrontation with not just one, but two nuclear powers. Even a limited exchange of atomic weapons will do much more harm to the environment than the product of all West Virginia coal mines if completely reopened
Yet, no one can disagree with Andrew Bacevich that we need to change course. After the Trump years, and, as it is becoming obvious in the new administration, a wise turnabout is in order and it is not coming from the top.
As his last paragraph has it, "In a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people, ultimate responsibility for recognizing the need to change rests with those people. For Americans to shirk that responsibility will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps—or someone worse—to come.
Another Bush or Obama would not exactly be a path to civic nirvana either.