United States militarism
Administrations of George W. Bush and Barack Obama have also ensured that military leaders dominate positions related to national security, to the detriment of diplomatic solutions with Iran, North Korea, or the Middle East.
"[5] Civilian academics and business researchers, including Henry Kissinger and Herman Kahn, came to prominence during the Cold War and significantly promoted the use of force.
[6] After the end of the Cold War, the United States took advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact by encouraging the newly liberated nations to join the NATO, the political and military alliance of the West.
[10] The American response to the 9/11 attacks as a "global" war on terror promoted the recent remilitarization of the Western countries, and introduced the Middle East as the source of threats to the rest of the world, which helped justify the bigger efforts after 9/11 to forcefully reshape the region.
One outcome of this consensus over the past 25 years has been the militarization of US policies and the promotion of tendencies that suggest American culture as a whole is becoming more and more enamored with its self-image as the unrivaled military power.
According to Coyne and Hall, these scholars believe that an interventionist foreign policy strengthens domestic institutions by promoting peace, stability, and freedom on a global scale.
[11] According to Coyne & Hall the western liberal values that the US government promotes in other cultures by leveraging the country's military and economic might, are frequently neglected, in order to maintain control over remote populations.
[13] While allowing the government to provide security is frequently seen as essential to upholding a free society, it may also give the state the capacity to trample on freedom in the name of safety.
In this vein, Senator William Fulbright warned[c] that the "militarism that has crept up on us [the United States] is bringing about profound changes in the character of our society and government—changes that are slowly undermining democratic procedure and values.
[14] The American public thus gradually began to believe that using force aggressively is the best way to address foreign issues or challenges in the decades after the end of World War II.
The so-called "boomerang effect" of foreign intervention is that it offers a trial ground for intervening governments to try out novel social control strategies on faraway populations.
[22] By emphasizing the risks from external threats and portraying the state as the ultimate source of order and safety, propaganda can help foster a culture of militarism that prioritizes national security over domestic, economic, political, and social institutions.
For instance, the National Football League has been enlisted by authorities to help create and sustain support for American military and foreign policy,[27] since the 9/11 attacks.
[28] After the attacks, several professional sports teams received funding from the Department of Defense to stage patriotic events to raise support for the war in Iraq and the broader battle against terror.
Even though WPR was passed over President Nixon's veto, Goodman, an expert in national security and intelligence, believes that the subsequent administrations have refused to uphold the resolution.
[31] The historian Andrew Bacevich observes that "today as never before in their history Americans are enthralled with military power," which, in his view, endangers US security at home and "wreaks havoc abroad.
"[22] Similarly, Goodman suggests that the US dependence on its military hurts US national interests at a time when the entire globe is experiencing extreme economic duress.
