by FRANCISCO GONZALEZ
The Terrapin Times News Editor
The Center for Historical Studies at the University of Maryland co-sponsored a lecture given by Historian John Lewis Gaddis on November 6 at the Nyumburu Cultural Center. Gaddis, a Professor of History at Yale University, gave an hour-long lecture to a packed room of several hundred people, mostly faculty and graduate students in the history department, as well as a good number of undergraduates interested in the topic of discussion: “America’s Place in the World in the 21st Century.”
Two years after September 11th, as the U.S. finds itself an ever more present force in the rest of the world, engaged in defending against potential terrorist attacks and spreading democracy to oppressed peoples, this topic was appropriately well-timed, as the packed room attested.
Gaddis began his discussion with some historical analysis. He said that the 9/11 attacks ushered in a change in the “grand strategy” of U.S. national defense. He pointed out that this is only the third time that the U.S. has transformed its defense strategy in the history of our nation. The other two key dates were in 1814, when the British burned the White House during the War of 1812, and 1941, after the devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Despite the shift in strategy in each occasion, Gaddis acknowledged that the U.S. consistently responds to attacks in a way that is “very uniquely American.” While most countries withdraw their forces (and play defense) in the face of attacks, the U.S. has always taken the offensive, Gaddis argued.
So, how does Gaddis think the Bush strategy has worked thus far? Things have gone pretty well, overall. In one sense, there have been no attacks on U.S. soil since that dreadful day in September 2001. In a military sense, the U.S. has been extremely successful in its campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq – with very low casualties. However, according to Gaddis, who is one of the best diplomatic historians of our age, a grand strategy comprises more than just avoiding attacks and carrying out successful military campaigns. It involves a new, sustained role for the nation, one he’s not sure our country is prepared for at the moment.
Gaddis believes that the Bush Administration’s strategy in the war on terrorism contains sources of strain. The strategy itself is dependent upon momentum. The purpose of the military campaigns against terrorism and state-sponsors of terrorism abroad are psychological as much as they are military. They were designed not only to oust the tyrannical regimes of the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, but also to intimidate future terrorists. And, while the U.S. must defend itself, it also has to be careful on the methods it chooses to do this. The timing of the Iraq war, in particular, said Gaddis was well overdue because of the twelve years of sanctions imposed against Saddam, but it also “unsettled nerves of allies abroad and critics at home.”
Gaddis had some minor criticisms of the Bush Administration’s strategy. He believes that the Administration needs to do a better job connecting language with strategy – something Gaddis demonstrated is very important historically. Gaddis is the author of many accomplished books on diplomacy including We Now Know: Rethinking Cold War History. Confessing to being a “cowboy Texan” himself, Gaddis said that part of the diplomatic problem for the White House is that European allies don’t take George W. Bush seriously with his Texas slang. Language and culture must be adjusted for successful diplomatic efforts.
Gaddis also took on this year’s theme of “Empire” in the Center for Historical Studies series of lecturers by asking rhetorically, “So, is America building an empire?”
First, he took on the notion of empire, saying that the word itself has gotten a “bad reputation” because of British, Spanish and French colonialism – and the fact that the American nation was founded through a colonial struggle. However, empires can be beneficial, he emphasized, because they also bring much order and stability to regions across the world. Yet, America has always stood against the idea of an empire. Or, has it?
Gaddis cited Thomas Jefferson as saying that “empire and liberty” could co-exist. According to Jefferson, America could advocate for liberty to flourish abroad if its purpose was to safeguard our defenses at home. Other founding fathers debated this notion with Jefferson, particularly Madison and John Quincy Adams. With these founding notions, America has gone abroad and intervened in other countries throughout our history, but our interventions have “produced no colonies, but liberated autonomous states,” asserted Gaddis. And, he argued that the twentieth century ended as well as it did because “America abandoned its isolationist tendencies and lived up to its global responsibilities.”
So, to answer his own question, Gaddis responded, “If America is building an empire, than it is an empire of liberty.” From John Quincy Adams to George W. Bush, this “empire of liberty” has embarked on a mission to “extend democracy everywhere.”
And, since 9/11, the U.S. has used this same centuries-old ideology, according to Gaddis, to change its grand strategy once again. The United States’ post-9/11 strategy rests on the notion that we cannot be safe at home while terrorists and tyrants exist abroad.
Gaddis exclaimed that this goal, to oust tyranny worldwide, was a noble one, which intends to benefit others abroad as much as it does Americans at home. And, he added that in its foreign policy decisions, the U.S. has consistently followed the economic philosophy of Adam Smith, who wrote in the Wealth of Nations that the only free societies are ones that maintain “the pursuit of individual interests in an open market.” Gaddis proclaimed that, “However imperial we have become, we have held on to [Smith’s idea of] liberty.” And, Gaddis continued, if we truly believe in liberty, “we have to be ready to fight for it.”
Gaddis’ speech was extremely motivational for those who think that American values have been lost in the teaching of American history. It was also a potential wake-up call for historians who don’t believe that it should be a priority to defend American values. Gaddis said that, in the wake of 9/11, one of his own Yale students asked him if it was okay to be patriotic. Concluding his lecture, with mostly left-leaning historians in the room, Gaddis courageously proclaimed, “Yes I think it is.”
To view Gaddis' analysis of the
transformation of
America's grand strategy, see:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/issue_novdec_2002/gaddis.html
