ABSTRACT
To speak of a distinctive American militarism at the start of the twenty-first century may seem odd to many observers of the political scene, something in sharp conflict with the peace-loving, democratic sensibilities generally understood to be part of the long U.S. historical experience. After all, there have been no dramatic military coups or juntas since the founding of the Republic, nor has the power of generals and admirals ever overwhelmed the integrity of civilian political rule. Indeed the military has always performed essentially instrumental functions, in the service of institutions, laws, goals, and ideals presumably beyond the scope of Pentagon decision making. The U.S. military, in other words, has been subordinate to the liberal-democratic principles of freedom, citizen participation, national self-determination, and Constitutional governance, both domestically and abroad. The well-worn preoccupation with national security, heightened in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, has taken on meaning within this framework. Woodrow Wilson's view of a strong America “making the world safe for democracy” seemed to capture the spirit and essence of U.S. foreign and military policy throughout the twentieth century, as did later apparently selfless and democratic motives during the World War II mobilization against fascism. Moreover, the U.S. has not typically been known for its string of foreign conquests or extensive network of colonies around the globe, as with earlier Spanish, French, and British empires. Few Americans today would entertain the notion of a U.S. Empire or the idea that their nation stands for anything but peaceful, democratic, humanitarian ends. As for the concept of “militarism,” that could only describe such demons as Napoleon or Hitler, Slobodan Milosevic or Saddam Hussein. At the same time, whatever role the military has played throughout American history would now appear to have diminished at a time when globalization, with its overwhelming stress on economic interests and discourses (growth, trade, investment, balance of payments, etc.), would appear to supersede the old-fashioned, clumsy, destructive tools of military violence—a major reason, perhaps, why the specter of U.S. global military power has commanded surprisingly limited attention from scholars, journalists, and other observers.
