Critical Interpretation of Contemporary American History Essay

Critical Interpretation of Contemporary the Statesn History - Essay ExampleIn the book The Sorrows of imperium Johnson claims that increasing militarization of society and global political power of the USA limits ideas of body politic and liberty established by the US Constitution. The same ideas are expressed by Sundhaussen (1998) and Welch (2004) who state that militarization of society bring the American nation much sorrows and grievances then gage and peace. Among them are internal cleavage, stinting stress, and external pressure. The means of military power is often identical to the means of assuming power in the first place. Following Sundhaussen (1998) The military is by its very nature a potential threat to democracy, n ever sotheless in well-established democracies noncombatant supremacy has generally been maintained, though there are dangers of excessive military do work (329). According to Johnson (2004), since 2001 the USA government has increased military spendin g and increased its military presence abroad. Furthermore, bonny as the original conspiracy to seize power had civilian adherents, the coup that presages a return to civilian rule is instigated by an alliance of military and civilian elements. Johnson compares modern American Empire with the Roman Empire which had a great influence on the western world and its historical development. For instance, Bush and his administration confine worked zealously to expand the powers of the presidency at the expense of the other branches of government (23). The development of military conglomerate is a part of the American history which goes back to the 1950s-1960s. In stark contrast to the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration has been unco consistent in its foreign policy agenda and its attempts to follow through on campaign pledges. It has sponsored the countrys largest ever military buildup. It has generated the highest level of tension in U.S. Soviet relations since the 1962 m issile crisis, resulting, for several years, in a hiatus in communication at virtually all levels on virtually all issues (Aylett and DeMarco 98-99). It has built the various intelligence agencies, expanding both surveillance and paramilitary capabilities, reinstating the practice of surveillance of U.S. citizens at home and abroad, treating either agency of government and any private organization or profession as legitimate cover, and introducing sunrise(prenominal) measures to protect secrecy and punish whistleblowers the Reagan Administration has escalated U.S. military involvement in Central American conflicts continuously, superfluous of overwhelming popular opposition to its policies at home and in allied countries of Europe and Latin America mindless of multiple opportunities for negotiation and compromise and mindless, finally, of the certainty of ignominious failure (Aylett and DeMarco 101). While it is clear that security interests have always loomed large in the shapi ng of U.S. policy, it is less clear how such interests are delimit and limited. The concept of security is eminently elastic. Johnson (2004) underlines that the paradoxical effect of this grand strategy is that it may prove more radically disruptive of world order than anything the terrorists of September 11, 2001 could have hoped to achieve on their