FiveBooks Interviews

Lawrence F Kaplan on US Intervention

The foreign affairs commentator explains why US presidents have less room to manoeuvre on foreign policy than they think, and why President Obama has had to set aside his “minimalist” inclinations

There seems to me to be so much labelling in the history of American foreign policy. Neo-isolationists, American exceptionalists, benevolent hegemonists and assertive multilateralists, to name just a few. Which coinages are in currency now?

All of these labels are variations on a single distinction. Basically, there are foreign policy minimalists and foreign policy interventionists. Minimalists, otherwise known as realists or isolationists, tend to insist that America should resist intervening abroad and simply shine as a city on a hill or be an exemplar nation. Interventionists, including neoconservatives and liberal hawks, believe America should intervene abroad in defence of its direct interests and its values. During the high point of the era of humanitarian intervention, ten or 15 years ago, Republicans were leaning in the direction of isolation. Today, the minimalists largely reside on the left. But these traditions are two sides of the same coin and they’ve been a constant in American foreign policy. They offer a useful prism through which to examine its contours and history.

That brings us to Promised Land, Crusader State by Walter McDougall. Tell us about the book.

As the title implies, it explores the two sides of American exceptionalism. The term American exceptionalism, I should elaborate, derives from the idea that America is not just any country. It is a special country with a special mission and, in purposefully biblical terms, that mission is to redeem an otherwise sinful world. McDougall divides American foreign policy into “Old Testament” and “New Testament” phases. Others would call the tendencies exemplar and missionary impulses respectively. His “Old Testament” presents a modest America to which foreign nations can look for example. His “New Testament” offers America as a missionary nation going abroad to lecture on the Good Book.

There is a striking continuity here. Even the most hard-nosed devotees of realpolitik (for instance Richard Nixon) are always in the end reduced to selling American foreign policy to Americans in biblical terms – referring to America as a city on the hill, a New Jerusalem. The language of American exceptionalism strikes a chord with Americans. President Obama, for one, came into office promising to be more modest in our dealings abroad. But to listen to him today you might think you’re listening to his predecessor. The lanes for discourse in American foreign policy are extremely narrow and well-hewed. When presidents talk about foreign policy they enjoy far less room to manoeuvre than they might have hoped for. They always veer back onto the path of exceptionalism.

McDougall disagrees with what he calls “American meliorism”, America’s attempt to remake the world in its image. Can you make his argument and then tell me if or why you disagree?

The strength of McDougall’s book is its taxonomies, the distinction he makes between the promised land, on the one hand, and then the crusader state on the other. The weakness of his book is located in its normative sections. McDougall, a Vietnam veteran, clearly prefers an America that, while it may have a conception of itself as a promised land, leads by example. He believes that during the Spanish American War America was transformed into a crusading state, and that after 1898 we were guided by a missionary impulse that led us into disaster in World War I and then into successive catastrophes during the Cold War, one of which he experienced up close and personally. In McDougall’s rueful telling, this tradition reached its apogee in Vietnam. Hence meliorism – the tendency to believe we can ameliorate the human condition, which he views as being fixed and fallen. McDougall nicely details how this messianic impulse has led us astray. But I believe his reading of our downfall is overly programmatic.

Let’s talk about Ordinary Men, Christopher Browning’s dissection of a 500-person German police battalion that shot 38,000 Jews and transported 45,000 to the gas chambers.

Browning famously wrote, and here I’m paraphrasing, “If the men of Police Battalion 101 could become killers, what group of men could not?” The takeaway from reading this horror-filled book is that depredations on the scale of those that Browning describes can be perpetrated anywhere and by anyone. Using first-hand accounts and official records, he describes how 500 ordinary men, Germans unfit for the draft, are given a mission to liquidate all the Jews in a village as well as an opportunity to excuse themselves. The vast majority chose to shoot innocent women and children. Over the next two years, they ended up murdering tens of thousands of people. This relates to my worldview in the sense that humanitarian interventionists are guided by the conviction that “never again” should we allow horrors of the type depicted in this book to repeat themselves. Certainly not if we have the means to prevent it and at acceptable cost.

So the fact that ordinary people can be turned into killing machines with ease, as Browning demonstrated, gives flight to the beliefs of liberal hawks like yourself?

The Holocaust looms large in American foreign policy. Unlike during World War II, when we were otherwise consumed, America now has the power to stop slow-motion slaughters. The Holocaust is always part of the debate when American humanitarian intervention comes up. Some people attribute that to the over-representation of Jews in American foreign policymaking. But I think the Holocaust stands as an example for non-Jewish and Jewish Americans alike, of what should never be allowed to happen on America’s watch.

Onto a book that would definitely appear on the syllabus of any international relations course: John Lewis Gaddis’s Strategies of Containment.

Comments

Good choices? What's missing? Write your thoughts below

About Lawrence Kaplan

Lawrence F Kaplan is a contributing editor and columnist at The New Republic, for whom he covered the war in Iraq from 2005 to 2007. He holds degrees from Columbia University, Oxford University and the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, and is a visiting professor at the US Army War College. Formerly the editor of World Affairs and The National Interest, Kaplan has written about international relations for publications including The New York Times and The Washington Post

Lawrence Kaplan’s Recommendations

Related Articles