The Savage Wars of Peace - Book Report/Review Example

? Book Report/Review Discussing "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power" here Here Introduction Since the end of the Civil War the United States have been involved in many wars, wars fought all over the world, for a number of reasons. In the last 12 years alone America has seen war in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, Somalia, Yemen, and Pakistan. These conflicts have not all directly involved the United States but because of the relationships that the United States has with its allies, political treaties, and tentative relationships equates to a sense of responsibility to step in and attempt to control events. Many call this “policing” the world and attempting to influence the world into the American ideology that would create the ultimate “Pax Americana.” 1 Whether or not this was a goal of America or a position they have simply been placed in whether it was desired or not; the United States has stepped in, on many occasions, in the civil wars of other countries, where American investment or interests have been low. Many feel it is the humanitarian aspects that draw America’s involvement. Regardless, many Americans are tired of this country being place in that position. Others, however, including experts in their field, like Max Boot, have a different perspective on Americas place in world politics. In his novel, "The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power," Boot shares that he believes that America has always been heading towards the title of Pax Americana and the country should police the rest of the world. His book, although well-written, is not as thorough enough to support all of the assumptions he presents; this lends weaknesses to his overall perspective. History Max Boot’s book is 15 chapters in total; 14 of which are essentially the same, while it is the concluding chapter where all of the author’s validations in his research are made. Boot, as mentioned, supports the idea that America should be involved in enforcing ethics and freedoms when necessary, even when that means war. Boot, not only, believes that this is the right just course for the future of the world, but it is the United States preverbal “manifest destiny.” The United States after the American Civil War has changed the way that they approach warfare. He explains that this was likely an intentional act. The first 14 chapters simply detail all of the wars that American has been a participant. Boot explains that in many of these wars since the late 1800s has been about that goal of becoming Pax Americana In these wars fought the United States has had no formal declarations of war, no exit strategies, involvement was half-hearted, like in the Boxer uprising, soldiers were acting a social workers, no direct national interest for America, U.S. troops were answering to foreign military, and these campaigns had little public support at home 2 This leaves humanitarian and political endeavors as the answer to American involvement. At least, that is Boot’s perspective and he does not consider humanitarian reasoning to be the most likely. Unfortunately, the first 14 chapters of Boot’s book is a rather biased review of every war fought since the Civil War, where Boot presents American figures and intentions as the side of “good” that always prevail against the evil enemy. Then in the 15th chapter explains how his interpretation of these wars verifies his thesis that America is intentionally becoming the global police and that is what it should be doing. However, that does not hold up under deeper scrutiny because he essentially takes the events that happened and assumes the intentions and ideals behind these battles; he then adapts these events to suit his theory. He failed to do the deeper research necessary to make such a bold hypothesis. Also, although the book was written in 2002 this agenda of universal, global control as a goal remained an argument of conjecture, yet 6 years later the current governmental regime may actually support Boot’s theory in their actions and leadership. For these reason his argument his rather weak; or at least, the weaknesses, ultimately, outweigh the strengths. Discussion The lack of necessary in-depth research is not the only flaw or weakness in Boot’s work. There are number of others that can be found in the book. It may be true that the U.S. has been involved in many foreign wars and has been placed in the position of global police and as the “middle man” in many situations. Boot’s research is less that inspiring, he takes a biased moral and ethical stand on the issue, which personalizes the issue, and misleads readers into the idea that the majority of the American people are on board with this great future responsibility and power of the United States. The only real strength in Boot’s argument is that it is true that America has been placed in the position of global police, but whether this is an intentional political maneuver or a maneuver that should be supported is entirely conjectures and wishful thinking on the part of the writer. As stated, again, Boots real research was rather non-existent. He repeated the, rather, one-sided interpretation of history offered in any elementary or junior high text-book. He makes no great correlations and discoveries. He then simply, took the outcome he wants and assigns it to the history. It is this level of assumption and his biased argument that makes it hard to consider the book to be a valid historical work or one that many people would want to rely upon. Boot presents the idea of Pax Americana and the United States as the global police is something that America is behind, unified, wholeheartedly. In fact, the majority of the United States has not supported many of these wars and are tired of America becoming involved in foreign wars and becoming embroiled in the political issues and intrigues of other nations3 Recent polls show that 85% of those who voted were against the continuation of America in foreign country’s interests.4 The will of the people has started to count for less and less since 2008, when the government regime led by current President, Barack Obama. In him we see a leader who places his own agendas and desires above that of the people, constitution, and, in some cases laws. He passes acts without support and refuses to debate or compromise, much like a petulant child. It is this kind of leadership that could lead America down the road of an intentional Pax Americana and overall global controller; whether or not the people support these choices. This is something, by the way, that our founding fathers warned future generation against doing. George Washington penned a letter as he left office as President warning those who follow him into politics to remember that we must consider our best interests first, allying with others makes enemies that we do not need. The most pressing aspects of the idea of America stepping in globally to makes certain that other government conduct themselves as the United States sees fit is rather presumptive on the part of Boot and those who support this perspective. What right does America have to decide for other countries, all over the world, how they shall believe, conduct themselves, structure their societies, and reform their governments as the United States endorses, and in some cases forces, is not ethically or morally just.5What right do we have? That is the question that many Americans are asking today. Do we have the right to tell others how to live; America dubs itself the “good” and the “right” and therefore the superhero that comes to save the day. That is not how these actions are perceived by foreign countries and by many citizens here on United States soil. We are presently suffering through our own very real, economic and social crisis; should we not be focusing on the needs of the people at home. Not to mention the perspective of individuals from other nations that feel that America should not be taking the moral high ground and stepping in to the business of others countries is inappropriate since America has issues of its own that it, apparently, cannot presently solve. It goes without question that America has changed the way war is fought since the Civil War. Many of those wars were called necessary for humanitarian reasons others for political ones. It is true that America has been placed in role of “savior” often and falls into the role of global police and continues to because they are the only one who always have and always do step in when there is a need or request. These facts do not verify that there has been a generation’s long agenda to make the Untied States the ultimate global power. We have seen in recent months the United States flex their muscles at other nations and making threats, which makes some experts, perceive Americas place is that of a global bully, threatening intervention when they do not get what they request. However, an ethically questionable as this may be, it also, does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is some sort of all American conspiracy to take over the whole world. Boot summarizes his position on the subject with a profound quote that has a great deal of significance to this discussion. He felt that America should not be afraid to fight and that it should boldly fight the,” the savage wars of peace if necessary to enlarge the empire of liberty. It has done it before”6 This quote speaks to the completely biased perspective that Boot has on the subject, making his research assumptive and that contributes to making it a bit unreliable. He may not be able to prove the agenda of the United States but he certainly has one of his own. “The empire of liberty,” is a very frightening statement. This speaks to world domination and the ideology of the “new world order.” This, of course, was never the intention of the United States, although there are some citizens, like Boot, that may. It does not speak to the bulk of the United States or its people. Conclusion In the end, most people, all over the world, want to live in peace. They want to raise families, make a secure living, and lead productive lives without conflict, either with their closest neighbors or enemies across the seas. Fighting our wars, other’s wars, and forcing American ideologies on other cultures and systems around the world and expecting them to conform is not the way. The United States was founded to be a country of freedom and diversity for all who sought it. It was never intended to be a global empire bent on world domination and that should never be the outright goal of any nation, great or small. Books, like Boots, twists facts and uses assumption in order to forward their own agendas not those shared by the United States. Work Cited Boot, Max. The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power. Purseus Book Group, 2002 Cohen , Michael. "Americans are no longer interested in policing the world, Mr Obama." The Guardian. (2013): 1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/08/americans-not-interested-policing-world (accessed November 16, 2013). Mayer, Bill. "The US: world's policeman or schoolyard bully?." The Guardian. (2013): 1. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/14/usa-worlds-policeman-school-bully (accessed November 16, 2013). Schneider, Bill. "Americans Tire of 'World Police' Role." Huffington Post. (2013): 1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-schneider/americans-tire-of-world-p_b_3894020.html (accessed November 16, 2013). Debate.org, . "Should America police the world?." Debate.org. (2013): 1. http://www.debate.org/opinions/should-america-police-the-world (accessed November 16, 2013). Read More