Andrew J. Bacevich’s “The New American Militarism” (Oxford University Press, 270 pages, $28) is both a critique and a defense of our nation’s armed forces by a West Point graduate, Vietnam veteran, professional military officer and self-described conservative Catholic. He also is professor of international relations and director of the Center for International Relations at Boston University.

A realist who believes in the necessity of a strong national defense, Bacevich recognizes that “from time to time in the years to come, it will doubtless be incumbent upon the United States, in the manner of great powers since time immemorial, to resort to force.” However, in light of current trends, “those citizens who prefer an American republic to an American empire ought to view the changes underway in the U.S. armed forces as worrisome.”

Unfortunately, many Americans have been persuaded that “global power projection” as “standard practice, a normal condition, one to which no plausible alternatives seem to exist. … it’s who we are and what we do.” Likewise, we seem to have become less able to discern the logical and moral fallacy of statements like the one made by a battalion commander in Iraq: “With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them.” (Some readers will no doubt hear echoes of the famous quote attributed to a battalion commander in Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”)

Bacevich argues that America’s military culture has grown arrogant and aloof from the public it ostensibly serves. In place of the current professional all-volunteer force, he makes the case for transformation back to a citizens’ force – and without reinstating the draft. A major rationale for the citizen-soldier model is the bedrock on which the country is built: the Constitution. The Founding Fathers saw the necessity for an adequate national defense but were wary of having a standing army. The incessant wars waged by Europe’s royalty with their legions at the ready stood as reminders of what should be avoided.

Bacevich posits that we’ve overreached our true focus, which is the direct defense of our homeland. While beefing up the National Guard “as the primary instrument of community defense” is entirely appropriate in response to 9-11, “community in this context refers not to Kosovo or Iraq but to Kansas and Iowa.” Alas, the next 9-11 can happen anywhere, and rooting out a few terrorists hiding in foreign mountains won’t protect us from the many thousands who are likely being generated by aggressive foreign ventures.

An enlightening history of how today’s American militarism evolved is laid out in seven chapters. We discover how Democratic and Republican presidents, from Wilson to Clinton, from Eisenhower to the Bushes, have all made military missteps. The intellectual forces driving policy also are well-detailed and include both liberal and conservative thinkers. Chapters focusing on evangelical Christians and neoconservatives, who patiently crept from the radical fringe to the mainstream, are particularly timely.

Much is riding on the issues in question – perhaps everything we treasure. As a nation, we should be looking for sustainable methods by which to run our economy and democratic political life, including a sensible defense strategy. But by taking for granted U.S. global dominance and our expectations of unlimited access to oil and every other product fueling our over-consumptive lifestyle, we risk falling into a pattern demonstrated by empires of the past:

“If it persists in these expectations, then America will surely share the fate of all those who in ages past have looked to war and military power to fulfill their destiny. We will rob future generations of their rightful inheritance. We will wreak havoc abroad. We will endanger our security at home. We will risk the forfeiture of all that we prize.”