American Statesmen: Secretaries of State from John Jay to Colin Powell Book

The book is about increase in American militarism and how this is dangerous in for American security. The most poignant parallel illustration of this fact is the Roman Republic and how its increase in militarization and imperial ambitions caused it to go from the Republic to an omnipotent empire that eroded the principles that the Republic was founded on. Remember that the Roman Republic was fine as a republic until it started to expand its border and thus its military. Once this happened, more resources were devoted to the military which required increasing centralization of leadership which eventually led to totalitarianism.

Chapter 1: Talks about the notion of neoconservative movement. Although I applaud the initial idealism that encompasses the neoconservative movement in spreading democracy across the world and the US being the beacon for that democracy, I fundamentally disagree with its overreliance on the military as a means to spread democracy. For true long-lasting liberal democracy to take hold in other countries, it needs to come from the bottom-up not a top-down way; to this end I support the role of US soft-power that is corporations in dispersing the positive effects of globalization thus increasing a viable middle class( cell phones&google in organizing democratic movements a la Egypt), American diplomacy to pressure regimes to liberalize their government and economies, and non-profits for educating and raising the natural consciousness of the citizens in that country. I think American military troops should be solely reserved for national security issues because that is where they are most effective and efficient. The military at its essence is for destroying the enemy and not for peacekeeping missions fighting nebulous enemies that cannot be taken down. Having said this, do I support the Afghanistan war? Yes I do because we entered the country so we have to finish the job however psychologically ill-equipped our military is to doing it.

I also think that America during times of peace should really concentrate on growing its economy and ensuring that American economy continues to dominate the world because from the American economy springs our military flexibility and might as well as international cultural influences. In my view, whomever has the best economy in the world will rule the world and thus should be the main focus of the neo-conservative movement.

The first chapter also states how the neoconservative movement is just the latest and most drastic trend on an already growing increase militarization and international commitments across the world. It also states how Iraqi regime change has been the stated policy of the neoconservative movement since day 1. The scary part of their stated policy view is that they were looking for 9/11 to enact their policies of preemption. Although Bush wanted Saddam Hussein out, it is scary how his advisors already had a world view in tact post 9/11 that included deposing Iraqi Saddam Hussein. But, Congress had gave the go ahead for the invasion of Iraq was partly to blame. Congress should have served to question the invasion because that was what the Founding Fathers intended. But, if the intelligence information was skewed to going to war then can Congress really decide based on the "facts"?

Chapter 2: This chapter deals with the "imperial presidency" and the consolidation of powers to the presidency starting from FDR to W. It also shows how industry is used by the presidency to further national interest. Since private industry does not have to show transparency like government, then R&D can go unimpeded whereas in government this is definitely not the case. The danger of such unimpeded imperial presidencies of course is the lack of oversight. Although I agree with the general principle of allowing the executive branch to hold sway in matters of execution national security, I think Congress still has the duty to make sure defense budget is money that is well spent and forwards our strategic interest.

This chapter does give me comfort because even though we are retracting our defense budget when time calls for it, given a strong vibrant economy, we can ramp up defense capabilities in a matter of a year. Also, we need to continue to fund R&D projects that will have implications later on down the road when we need it. The problem with creating a weapon before it is absolutely needed is that we might be forced to use it to justify its production in the first place. This was the exact temptation that Truman succumbed to in dropping the A-bomb. Although dropping the A-bomb was not needed in a Japanese surrender, he did it not only to get unconditional Japanese surrender but also as a deterrent against Soviet aggression. But, instead of serving as a deterrent against the Soviets, it served to create an arms race that produced the cold war.

Chapter 3: It was right that Eisenhower worry about the growing influence of military-industrial complex in creating empowered and bellicose executive branch at the expense of the other branches of government. It all apparently started with the Truman Doctrine of protecting all free people in the world against communist aggression. And with the doctrine the 1947 National Security Act that created the DoD, National Security Council and the CIA. What I do not understand and I think should be largely corrected is congressional failure in enacting a law that allows Congressional subcommittee's especially the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Foreign Affairs subcommittee to be furnished the same level of raw intelligence that the executive branch has. I think if anything this will prevent a repeat of the heavily skewed intelligence that occurred during the Iraq war. The way it is written now, the President can make a case for war anytime he wants by cherry-picking intelligence that he deems necessary for the American public and Congress to support war (Iraq war #2). Although the decision to go to war should still lie with Congress (but with greater raw intelligence that will run through Congressional subcommittees), I think the planning and execution of the war should still remain with the President with a tight chain of command. Thus, I generally support the National Securities Act with the caveat of increase Congressional oversight that the Intelligence communities should provide Congressional subcommittees the same raw intelligence that the President receives.

As far as the military-industrial complex goes, if Republicans really want a decrease in bureaucracy it should look no further than the Defense department because it boast to be the largest corporation in the US. Being the largest corporation in the US means it boast the largest constituency base that makes sure it stays that way. That means special interest groups will makes sure the government will spend a lot of money on defense and thus favors an aggressive American foreign policy. Unlike the neocons that look to American world domination via strong defense, I favor the military as it was originally envision that is specifically defending American interest with ultimate goal of vanquishing our enemies ON THE BATTLEFIELD, not off it (aside from current military engagements this means no more occupation and nation-building exercises).

As for the role of the CIA, I do not understand why the Defense Department has its own intelligence apparatus. I think that intelligence apparatus within the defense department only favors a more bellicose America. Central Intelligence Agency was originally created to centralize intelligence so that means to me intelligence should be centralized within the CIA that shares its intelligence with President, NSC, DoD. Having said, I still believe that the CIA has responsibility of covert action but only to tip popular revolts toward US interest and not killing elected leaders no matter how bellicose they are the US. As we have seen in history, CIA meddling in countries in which popularly elected leaders are prominent has led to problem after problem that we have to fix after the fact. That is, present interventionist policies leads to further future interventions not less.

I also am for a reemergence of the State Department as a prime actor in foreign affairs policy that is using existing partnerships between diplomatic, corporations, and non-profit organizations to further the democratization, globalization in an effort to stabilize the world from radicalism/totalitarianism, that in its most recent reincarnation, is the face of radical fundamentalist Islam.

Chapter 4: I am continued to be amazed despite continuously reading it from other books how much the neoconservative movement actually stemmed from FDR/Truman doctrine of interventionist liberalism. No wonder Reagan was attracted to FDR because foreign policy wise they were actually had the same mind also they shared the same communication skills. This chapter deals with Eisenhower's balancing act in trying to get the US ready militarily via the "military-industrial complex" (trifecta of the military, academic, and industry) while at the same time making sure that the military spending actually is aligned with American strategic goals and not that of military industry or special interest groups, or specific congressional districts with vested interest in the military. For his efforts in trying to steer military spending toward strategic goals he was branded as soft on defense. I generally trust Generals to make decisions to go to war a la Eisenhower and Powell because they seem to be able to balance American strategic interest with the cost of human life the war demands. This is displayed in the quote "[Eisenhower] believed deeply in the necessity for WWII and felt that Nazism was a terrible tyranny...and he bought this conviction and drive to defeating Nazi Germany. But he never lost his understanding of the cost of war." Furthermore, "while the devastating horrors of the concentration camps underscored the need to fight for freedom, the gratuitous mass destruction of Hiroshima instilled in him an equal and opposite awareness that the fight for freedom conducted without reason and a steady moral compass, could itself lend to atrocities. From his postwar flirtation with America's power set, Eisenhower seems to have developed a simultaneous respect for the power of money and a healthy skepticism of it."

Even the reluctant interventionist Eisenhower used the CIA to help US and BP interest in overthrowing a democratically Iranian leader that later set up the middle east conflict that we now know and love. Reading this makes me even more adamant in the need to decouple our national interest from the middle east and oil companies as fast as we can. The American military should be used solely for national security issues that directly effect America and not for companies bottomline issues. The only time the American military should be used in these cases is when American ships and supply lines are directly attacked. In other words, America should steer clear of policies that forces us to use our military to protect business interests.

Chapter 5:

I think Rumsfeld "Shock and Awe" strategy was the right strategy for the new age unconventional war "counter-terrorist" as well as conventional war in terms of using technological air force advance combined with special ops but used in the wrong war, Iraq and Afghanistan. His mistake is not seeing that in overthrowing Saddam Hussein he was having to deal with an issue of regime change which by necessity needs nation building which needs a counter-insurgency strategy which means more "boots on the ground" not less because the goal of counter-insurgency strategy is the "hearts and minds" of the opposition which means population security and tangible results of the occupation. In a war in which the army should fight which is clear enemies with clear objectives and definable and achievable goal, Rumsfeld way of "Shock and Awe" is actually the way of the future.

I actually think while the Army should focus on war, I think the State department should focus on nation building aspects if we are to do this again in the future which means more people who are knowledgeable about specific culture we are going into. One should support the other instead of antagonizing the other.

There is one passage that I found reassuring and supports my notion of decrease defense spending during peace time and ramp it up only during a conflict. " Shortly after 9/11, Rumsfeld had called the DTRA to produce [Guided Bomb Unit-24) almost overnight. The speed with which the DTRA organized a quick response team of military, energy, and industry experts to meet this challenge and custom-tailored such a specialized precision weapon was transformation at work. In just a month, the new warhead was developed, tested, and commissioned for the Afghan campaign." This of coarse leaves in tact spending for defense R&D and building of prototypes.

The chapter also makes a warning for special interest defense contractor lobby. Although military innovation needs industry to innovate, American government must realize that what is good for the company or even specific branch of the armed forces might not be good for the American people who ultimately is who the government serves. Federal Government officials must be constantly aware of the undue influence of the defense lobby in influencing policy toward their specific company's interest.

Chapter 6:

I think this chapter is the best chapter yet in terms of the inherent deficiencies of even the best government system in the world. Jarecki description of "corruption of government" is just a negative byproduct of the general good system that we have. To me this just proves any man made system will have inherent flaws even to the enlightened founders who created the modern republic/capitalist system, they could not have fore seen the creation of the perfect system with inherent flaws. Jarecki describes a system of how the military/industrial/congressional complex essentially waste US tax payer money to fund some military projects that do not work.

He states the only reason projects still exist despite under-performance and overcosts because it inherently benefits all those involved in the project. He reasons that industry maneuvers in order to get what they want by front-loading the project (overpromise the results and undervalue the cost of the project) to sell it to the American government and political engineering the project by distributing the project to contractors and subcontractors to as many states as possible so if the project becomes too expensive or does not deliver the expected results it would be too politically difficult to kill the project.

In this way, I think the current political/economic environment of deficit reduction is a good thing because it forces the American federal government to look to what is truly worth spending on instead of succumbing to both political and economic district inertia. Hopefully after this environment of deficit reduction one will get a leaner and meaner government that works and is both more efficient and responsive to the American public.

The question is how do we keep the current system of democratic checks and balances and at the same time reform the system to be more efficient so if a project does not work it is not bogged down by political patronage system that may be good for a government bureaucracy, Congress, and industrial allies but not for the American people. I guess the key is to constantly reform the system while avoiding a revolutionary change, but how?

Perhaps, a good way to do this is to increase the number of competitive industrial bids per McCains suggestion to prevent collusion, maybe to prevent immediate hiring of personnel from industry to government and vice versa again to prevent collusion and conflict of interest, perhaps to limit states to 10-25% of states that get awarded industrial contracts to limit the political engineering capabilities of the companies of the projects in order to allow the federal government more flexibility to shift resources once we definitively know that the project is a waste of resources.

To Rumsfeld's credit, he did try to change the oversized bureaucracy that is the military to respond to the 21 century war but the mistake of the Bush administration is to use 21 century strategy of war in a 20 century war which eventually needed heavy reliance on conventional troops to meet its objective (counter-insurgency troop surge).

Chapter 7: The book culminates with the focus of W.'s administrations contempt of the other branches of federal government (Congress and Judiciary) in an attempt to balance the executive branches power. With the background of the never-ending war on terror, W. engaged in massive executive overreach by either galvanizing Congress to give him enourmous influence over both international and domestic policy, and circumventing laws both domestic and international that he did not like and thus lessening the influence of both Congress and the judiciary.

This chapter made me realize given the enormous power that the executive now has due to expanded powers that Bush gave it, it behooves to have an executive who thinks about the rule of law and naturally favors civil liberties over aggression a la Barack Obama. The problem with this is, the American public will have to look for characteristics of restraint from its chief executive in place of constitutional separation of powers that should be inherent in the rule of law. Basically, more and more we really rely on the Presidents particular personality to rule this country and his particular spin on the law instead of the rule of law, itself. This also underscores why it is good that the legislative and executive needs to be from different parties. One party rule leads to this kind of abuse with increasing power that accrues to the executive branch. It seems to me the best combination in terms of contracting the deficit is a Democratic Presidency and a Republican legislature and perhaps best in terms of keeping the balance of powers in check too a la Clinton administration.

Another interesting thing about this chapter, is the privatization of some government responsibility in the name of increased efficiency. I generally believe that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector because of competition. So, this means government contracts need to have biding competition instead of the rampant abuse that occurred in W administration between it and Halliburton. Also, the chapter underscores that one of the reason that government gives contracts to private companies is because it can "hide" behind those companies. I think a simple law that requires private companies that have contracted out the government can be held publicly accountable the same way public institution are will suffice.

Conclusion: His prescription for the issue of undue corporate influence is to have sustained public citzenry efforts of calling Congress in the hopes of real reform to the system.

He also wants a new National Security Act that shifts the balance of power from executive to the legislative branch in matters of foreign policy. While I agree with the need for Congress to rediscover its role in the declaration of war and to see how the war is financed, I still think the executive should be the one to execute the war because the executive has an inherent chain of command that the legislature by its nature lacks. He, like I, also would like to see the resurgence of the State Department in matters of foreign affairs and keep the Defense department in clearly defined missions with clear objectives.