From the establishment of the United States, the country has been shaped by the ache of war, which was a united fight; once the United States was in war, the entire country itself found itself in that war. From the time of Thomas Jefferson, the stance of war and soldiers were unparalleled to the ideology of the military circa 20th century. In Rachel Maddow’s, Drift: The Unmooring of American Military Power, there is a shift of power in the military, creating a perpetual spending and power for the military, mostly under the administration of Ronald Reagan. Maddow uses factual information, personal dialogue between officials within the military in the under the staff of the White House, and stories of popular actors during the time of escalation
…show more content…
Along with military, war was a dreadful, but essential part of a country in which, administration, under Reagan, used to escalate the forces of the “enemy” who Reagan places on the Soviet Union. In the prologue, Maddow discusses her thesis on how the old structure of the military being a small and controlled force was in turn, reversed to the opposite of its original structure, which leaves the United States in shambles of a “new post-Cold War” which she says. Maddow also brings up Vietnam, which, like she states, was a war that nobody liked how it turned out. The war itself bought a different shape into the way the military was functioned, thus, the military was restricted and titled the Total Force Party, or the Abrams Doctrine, named after Creighton Abram, a US commander in Vietnam from 1968 to …show more content…
This book is best recommended for those interested in how power is distributed and going to the military, further pushing the idea of the military-industrial complex. Maddow does a great job showing the change in militaristic power from the Jeffersonian era in the early 19th century to Reagan’s presidency. The book pushes discussions past President Reagan, but the future of the military’s power and budget, especially during the 21st century, with the faulty and extreme spending of the
Along with military, war was a dreadful, but essential part of a country in which, administration, under Reagan, used to escalate the forces of the “enemy” who Reagan places on the Soviet Union. In the prologue, Maddow discusses her thesis on how the old structure of the military being a small and controlled force was in turn, reversed to the opposite of its original structure, which leaves the United States in shambles of a “new post-Cold War” which she says. Maddow also brings up Vietnam, which, like she states, was a war that nobody liked how it turned out. The war itself bought a different shape into the way the military was functioned, thus, the military was restricted and titled the Total Force Party, or the Abrams Doctrine, named after Creighton Abram, a US commander in Vietnam from 1968 to …show more content…
This book is best recommended for those interested in how power is distributed and going to the military, further pushing the idea of the military-industrial complex. Maddow does a great job showing the change in militaristic power from the Jeffersonian era in the early 19th century to Reagan’s presidency. The book pushes discussions past President Reagan, but the future of the military’s power and budget, especially during the 21st century, with the faulty and extreme spending of the