Historical Lessons Warn Against Modern US Foreign Policy
This writer has recently published a book which examines the cultural origins of a certain American outlook that, since the Second World War, has inspired generally unsuccessful military interventions into non-Western countries, the most dramatic of them being the defeat in Vietnam followed by the genocide in Cambodia. This American outlook subsequently inspired the 2001-2003 invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, neither of them successfully settled (or indeed “won”), and both of them, these days, looking as if they may crumble again into internecine violence, despite the continued presence of American troops (and in Afghanistan, those of NATO).
This may make the book sound like just one more American recitation of how the Bush and Obama administrations have gone wrong, accompanied by some new argument about how the U.S. might “surge” its way out of its problems, or renew its efforts to turn Iraq, Afghanistan (and Pakistan), and other non-Western countries, into modern global democracies, or reorganize the world generally according to some progressive (or neoconservative) scheme.
I am in fact more inclined to recommend that the U.S. simply walk away from these disasters, but the principal concern of the book is to explain why all this happened, so as to prevent it from going on happening. Thus the book’s title is The Irony of Manifest Destiny. The subtitle is The Tragedy of American Foreign Policy. (It’s published by Walker and Company in New York, a part of the Bloomsbury International group.)
Let me start with the 18th-century Enlightenment. As Peter Gay, the American historian of the Enlightenment, has said (as have others before him), one of the principal outcomes of the Enlightenment’s intellectual revolution was to undermine Christianity and substitute what Gay calls the Modern Paganism. It is easy to see that one of the chief results of this was to cause a great many of the intellectual leaders of the period to cease to believe in a heavenly destiny for humans. Christianity had said (and continues to say) that if you obeyed God’s injunctions, as revealed to humans in scripture and prophecy, you would go to heaven to share the company of God. The political significance of this was that earthly life and struggle settle nothing fundamental, and thus require a religious resolution.
The isolated American colonies largely escaped the European Enlightenment experience, and therefore escaped the lessons it taught the Europeans during the 19th and 20th centuries. The Modern Paganism inspired the effort to create secular utopias. It taught that since there was no God, no heaven, and presumably no end to history, men would have to change human society and destiny, if there was to be any change at all. A better world would have to come from human effort – if there was ever to be a better world.
Therefore in the 19th century a series of theories about human destiny were proclaimed, nearly always accompanied by a plan showing how people must behave to make a heaven on earth, or something close to it. There was Marxism, intended to lead to the triumph of the working class and the perfection of society. There were doctrines of racial superiority and triumph over lesser races, or other human groups or classes. Nazism was the obvious case, but there were plenty of others, few of them peaceful, most involving conquest by war, the destruction of rival groups, and the arrival of a New Man. Usually it was assumed – as in the 20th-century totalitarianisms – that ruthless action was essential to make this happen. Any degree of bloodshed was permissible if the outcome was to be a utopian society.
The alternative of peaceful utopian evolution was proclaimed by Francis Fukuyama – in an expression he probably wishes he had never invented – as the End of History, in which the collapse of Communism would leave society perfected in a liberal democratic capitalist order that would have no need for future change. There would be no more history because there would be no need for it. All the important problems would have been solved, largely through peaceful action and the good example and leadership of the United States.
It has not turned out that way. Even after the well-intentioned wars waged by the United States, Americans are still struggling to establish their own version of a utopian world order, the great illusion of the Enlightenment. We are still at it by means of American interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Iran, Central Asia, and elsewhere.
The conclusion of my argument is that no secular Utopia is going to be created. The lesson of modern European history – the world wars and the great totalitarian convulsions – is that trying to create one invites disaster.
My other conclusion is a very old one. No single power is going to “conquer” the world – even if its motivation is benevolent. The effort is nearly always destructive to all. This is a lesson, to which few listen. It was formulated in the great period of classical Greek philosophy and drama, and summed up in classical tragedy. The pattern is simple: the achievement of great power, the growth of unchecked ambition, power’s misuse through the flaws of human character, produce crimes against what the commonality of society understands as moral order. This constitutes hubris – arrogant overreaching. It invariably ends in defeat and retribution. It undoubtedly will happen to us too. Read the book.
(c) 2010 Tribune Media Services, Inc.
Read more by William Pfaff
- NATO Summit Unlikely to Answer the Most Important Questions – November 16th, 2010
- Asia Trip: Obama Sticks to Failed Foreign Policy – November 10th, 2010
- Nuclear Armament Still Our Central Issue – October 5th, 2010
- Are Obama’s Hands Tied? – September 28th, 2010
- US Could Be Alone as Europe Turns Inward – September 21st, 2010





Tweets that mention Historical Lessons Warn Against Modern US Foreign Policy by William Pfaff -- Antiwar.com -- Topsy.com
June 16th, 2010 at 12:48 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Nda Gell, Melm Pem. Melm Pem said: Historical Lessons Warn Against Modern US Foreign Policy: http://bit.ly/aVbCwS [...]
Kevin
June 16th, 2010 at 2:02 pm
Wow … sounds like a fascinating book.
The question is, how does a nation get off the path of 'good' and start to do 'evil' things. Christianity wasn't a great preventer of this. The horrors of World War I were largely that of Christian democracices acting evilly towards one another.
But, at least Christianity did try to hold a moral compass to men's souls. The dog-eat-dog philosophies of extreme capitalism are the modern alternative. If there's no heaven, what says that a man shouldn't just grab all that he can for himself while he lives. Most toys wins, and who cares if millions live in modern slavery in order to create the riches for those toys. And if they object, send in the riot police crush them, or attack their nations if they are not properly submissive to the American drive to accumulate the most toys.
To me, this is exactly what Jesus tried to warn against. To me, Jesus seems to be saying that if we continue with this dog-eat-dog all-out competitive approach, then what we create will be a hell on earth. If we want paradise instead, the path towards it is for each man to love his 'enemy' like a brother. Its our choice. The hell of constant all-out competition, or a peaceful paradise on earth where each of us has the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without either the violence or the domination of another.
Kevin
June 16th, 2010 at 2:11 pm
PS … I don't consider myself a Christian. But that's my take on what Jesus was trying to say.
Consider for instance the question of population control. When looked at from the level of the whole earth, we seem to be in the process of creating a massive world-wide horror of an earth that has too many people on it. The alternative is to control the population such that it stops growing and maybe comes back down over time towards some level that's more sustainable.
But, if you are thinking in terms of competition, then lowering your own birthrate is suicidal. Your family, your clan, your city, your nation is in competition with the rest of the world, and it needs more workers and more fighters, so be fruitful and multiply.
But if we all follow that course,then the best any of us can achieve is to be the strongest force in a hell of world where there isn't enough food and there isn't enough energy for everyone. The alternative of a peaceful and sustainable world can only be achieved by ending such competition and working together to stop the increasing world population and maybe lower it some.
To me, that's what Jesus was trying to say … its not about some mythological heaven and hell existing somewhere else … its about what sort of world do we want to create here on earth for ourselves … and our children?
andy
June 16th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Hubris is at the root of America's political establishment. It also doesn't hurt that those who design America's foreign policy never have to pay the price for it.
eve
June 16th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Religion enslaves and controls in the name of God.
JLS
June 16th, 2010 at 7:31 pm
that's just a cliche at this point. Religion isn't motivating the US to have 800 military bases in 130 plus countries.
E. A. Costa
June 16th, 2010 at 8:41 pm
Gay's argument is tendentious and absurd. Calvinism and Capitalism intersected in very materialistic terms, intensified by a pre-Leibnitzian monadology, which is still going strong among many American Protestants.
Moreover, American Imperialism, including slash and burn westwards
more vicious than the British in regard to the native tribes–began long before Manifest Destiny, which was its consequence not its cause.
Note also all the tepid Christian "pagans" and outright unbelievers in the anti-Imperialist League, including Twain and Howells.
Meanwhile fervid Christian ministers were waving the dried genitals of murdered Filipinos to the applause of their congregations.
Did you think "The War Prayer" was fiction?
This stands as a Christian and religious crypt-apologetic of the worse sort.
One commends various works of George Santayana on the Puritans for a much different view.
Rich
June 17th, 2010 at 12:57 am
I hate to have to correct Mr. Pfaff, but we(the US) did not lose the Vietnam war. American troops were withdrawn from Vietnam and the South Vietnamese army then proceeded to lose the war. It always strikes me as a little silly how certain writers love to write about America's defeat in Vietnam, as if the fact that we withdrew isn't enough, we have to have been defeated. I will repeat a well worn fact for those unfamiliar with the war, the US military won every major engagement and could easily have ended the war with a full scale invasion of the North. It was the limited use of our military that prolonged the war. This is not an endorsement of militaru adventurism or American empire, but those of us against present US policy should try to stay closer to the truth than the neo-con men who bend and twist facts to make their arguments.
andy
June 17th, 2010 at 3:08 am
I disagree Rich. A full-scale invasion of the north, even if it didn't lead to Chinese involvement as with Korea, would have simply recreated for America the same situation the French found themselves in during the 1950's. I see no way America could have achieved a politically acceptable settlement, even presuming there was a worthwhile goal to be obtained in the first place. Your comment that America "won" all the battles may be true, but is besides the point. The NVA didn't HAVE to win any battles. Neither do the Taliban. They just had to endure.