After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in a World Transformed

About the Author

Upon his service, Andrew J. Bacevich, an American historian and retired US Army officer graduated from West Point and later received a PhD from Princeton. He is a critic of American exceptionalism (the belief that the United States is inherently different from other nations and therefore has a unique role in the world) and militarism (the belief that a strong military is essential for a country’s security and prosperity).

Bacevich fought in the Vietnam War and the Gulf War and retired as a colonel after 23 years. After leaving the military, he became a professor of international relations and history at Boston University and was also the director of the Center for International Relations.

Bacevich’s promotion of a less interventionist US foreign policy was one of the reasons he co-founded the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, an anti-interventionist think tank. His earlier books — The New American Militarism, Washington Rules, America’s War for the Greater Middle East, and The Age of Illusions — all examine the costs of American interventionism and the pernicious effects of military overreach on the world.

About the Book

After the Apocalypse: America’s Role in a World Transformed, published last summer, is widely regarded to be one of the year’s best. America After the Apocalypse: A History of the Future is a follow-up of sorts to this book, with Bacevich ruminating on the transformational crises of 2020—the pandemic, economic collapse, social unrest, and environmental disasters, most of them stirred by climate change.

Bacevich describes 2020 as an “apocalypse” — not an end, but a moment of revelation that exposes tremendous weaknesses within America’s policies and global standing. He argues that these cascading crises enlighten critical failures in how this nation has been led, its role in foreign affairs, and its self-image as a center of power in the world. Bacevich’s view of the United States’ role in the world is that it is a nation that needs to reevaluate and potentially transform its approach to global affairs, moving away from interventionism and towards a more cooperative and less militaristic stance.

Summary

Bacevich opens After the Apocalypse with a reflection on the apocalyptic character of the events of 2020, which he believes should be a “wake-up call” to policymakers in the US. He points to the Trump administration as the source of what went wrong in 2020 – its mishandling of the pandemic, fiery politics, and treatment of the social justice protests.

Bacevich argues that these events represent a much deeper malaise within American politics and foreign policy. These troubling crises have left us unprepared and unable to adapt to myriad challenges facing Americans within their borders and many around the world. Bacevich’s use of historical comparisons, such as the collapse of the French army in 1940, adds weight to his arguments, making them more compelling and thought-provoking.

At another moment in After the Apocalypse, Bacevich translates this comparison into contemporary America in the year 2020, implying that our leaders have been as incapable of meeting the demands of crises in our own time. At the heart of Bacevich’s argument is his criticism of the American elite and political class, including presidents of both major parties, whom he holds responsible for perpetuating a policy of endless wars and imperial excesses. He argues that the post-Cold War “American empire” has eroded the country’s security rather than protected it.

He criticizes figures such as George W. Bush, who launched preventive wars that led to the invasion of Iraq, and Barack Obama, whose administration continued military confrontations in the Middle East, thereby entrenching interventionist policies at home. Bacevich is particularly critical of the partisan nature of this interventionist mentality.

Given its shortcomings and one’s own, Bacevich says that Trump’s isolationist, “America First” style has exposed more significant problems with the US foreign policy establishment. He believes that Trump’s foreign policy stance has exposed essential vulnerabilities in the American political system, which include alienation from democratic values and an instinct for populist talk over studied action.

Bacevich thinks that the administration’s pullout from some alliances and duty signals a shift towards a required reevaluation of the United States’ role in the world, regardless of its dismissal of Trump. Trump’s isolationism, argues Bacevich, lacks an impetuous concept and has ultimately fallen low in offering an achievable future for the US. He adds that Trump has been willing to fight.

After the Apocalypse includes extensive time on NATO, which Bacevich views as an outmoded alliance that has outlived its utility. He believes that NATO’s relevance perished with the end of the Cold War and that its continuing expansion only produces dissatisfaction and creates unwanted entanglements for the United States. Bacevich, like Trump, has called for NATO pullout, claiming that America and Europe are now on “divergent paths.” He contends that NATO, rather than strengthening security, has become a possible root of conflict and frustration, particularly given its work in Eastern Europe.

Bacevich’s suggestion was controversial even before Russia invaded Ukraine. His suggestion to disengage from NATO stems from his conviction that the United States must take an isolationist approach to Europe, and Europeans must have the opportunity to do much more for their security. However, the upsurge of tensions between Russia and countries aligned with NATO undermines Bacevich’s case and shows that the alliance still has its place in the existing regional security system.

While Bacevich identifies the avenues down which America could travel after “the long war,” he reminds us that disengagement is complex and that creating a new order is unclear. He hits upon the much-anticipated yet awkwardly messy US exit from Afghanistan in August 2022. He argues that although it was to be welcomed, it highlighted the challenges in strategic and logistical ways, wrapping up the prolonged military commitments.

True, Bacevich points out — there are still no prescriptions here, no blueprint for the way forward — he concedes that he encourages the conclusion of the United States’ self-proclaimed “imperial posture,” the details of such a transition are still vague. But someone needing the country to see its place in the world differently will be left wanting, as he does not drive home steps – leaving readers with many more questions than answers when reimagining the United States’ international role in a sustainable way that makes sense.

Evaluation of Argument and Evidence

Bacevich certainly offers America timely and thought-provoking critiques of interventionism. His references to history (for example, his comparison with Marc Bloch’s denunciation of French leadership) add weight to the argument, highlighting the risks of self-satisfaction and bad leadership. Bacevich then shows the cyclical reality of political failure by citing historical precedents, showing that American leaders are plagued by overreach and hubris, just like today’s.

However, the book does not offer the kind of empirical analysis that could lend weight to Bacevich’s argument. He does examine American foreign policy mistakes like the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, but he doesn’t go into enough case study details to support his argument with something tangible. However, his persuasive analysis could use more depth and specificity, especially in demonstrating the real effects of interventionist policies on both the US and the areas they affect.

Another contentious point is Bacevich’s call for America to withdraw from NATO, which may not agree with all readers. Suppose NATO finds itself living on to fight another day. In that case, recent events like the Russian invasion of Ukraine suggest Bacevich may be stuck in a somewhat rigid assessment of age-old geopolitics. He sees NATO as a remnant of the Cold War; critics say its continued role as a deterrent in Eastern Europe is critical. While thought-provoking, Bacevich’s criticism needs a finer grain of detail in taking account of the security of the present.

Has the Author Proven His Hypothesis?

The central thesis of Bacevich in After the Apocalypse is that America can’t rely on more urbanization and that military powers are unsustainable and unproductive. He ably exposes the disadvantages of these policies, spelling out the financial, moral, and strategic price of American militarism. Nonetheless, his argument would be more convincing if it included some examples of actual countries that have experienced changes that weren’t solely about capitalism. But Bacevich need not examine individual wars in depth or provide specific supporting historical evidence, as he does everything at a very high level — and therefore successively, significant, overall historical criticisms and general parallels between US domestic politics and war lead him to somewhat argue without much substance.

Even in terms of solutions, Bacevich’s hypothesis does not quite work. Although he advocates pursuing an “isolationist” non-interventionist policy, he does not offer a manifesto for how a shift in US policy should take its place. The new American purpose he is calling for is enthralling, yet the absence of what it looks like may make readers question how realistic that change is.

Critique of After the Apocalypse

While After the Apocalypse provides a captivating view of US foreign policy, it is not the best place to start for those unfamiliar with international relations or military strategy. This tendency towards abstract argument and historical analogy can make his writing difficult for those looking for a more systematic account of America’s role in the world. For those students or readers looking for an entry point into critical anti-imperialist analysis of US foreign policy, the work of Bacevich may provide the hook at least. It could function as a textbook or a systematic study of everything wrong with such a strategy, and it does neither. After the Apocalypse poses much more weight on questions than it answers about the future of American global leadership, but it is more a reflection than a manifesto.

Conclusion

Andrew J. Bacevich’s After the Apocalypse returns to America’s adventurism in foreign policy and militarism through a lens often overlooked amid the chaos of 2020: the realization that at key moments, American leadership and place in the world fell short of ideal ideals and values. He investigates the record and recurring misery of American foreign policy and challenges the viability of America as the global hegemon it imagines itself to be.

While Bacevich denounces the perpetual wars and entanglements and pushes for a begrudgingly more non-interventionist route, he never really offers a delineated plan of what to do next. But his taking on NATO and the Afghan withdrawal, as well as Trump’s “America First” agenda, further illuminate the hurdles and paradox of a new vision of America’s place, most recently manifest in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Simulating deep-seated issues that are salient but not specific enough to solve, Bacevich’s arguments are broad but shallow due to his limited empirical strategic depth, leaving readers wondering less what Bacevich is saying and more how the sought-after good sensible US foreign policy can be achieved. Although the book is more a retrospective critique than a manifesto, it is consequently more suited to those veterans of US foreign policy than a general reader. 

---

If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please check the Submissions page.

The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.