It’s not an addiction! We can stop any time we want!
Free-Minimum-5844 on
In Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt argues that every modern American president. From Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, leaders who vowed restraint have resorted to military force, with Trump’s second term proving especially bellicose, including renewed strikes on Iran. Walt contends this pattern reflects structural forces rather than individual failings: expanded executive war powers, congressional abdication, deficit financing that shields voters from costs, an all-volunteer force that limits public backlash, and a military-industrial ecosystem that amplifies threats. Precision weapons and low-risk air campaigns further lower the threshold for action. The result, he concludes, is a presidency tempted by an ever-present “big red button”: making war the default instrument of American statecraft.
Background-Bottle-23 on
Sure, but there are good ways of waging war and bad ways of waging war. Kosovo intervention and the Gulf War were both fully justified, effective, and necessary. It is just that every single president since Clinton was god-awful at their jobs.
Trojan_Horse_of_Fate on
I feel addiction should be measured against capability and Americans could certainly be engaging in an awful lot more war. The fact of the matter is America is present everywhere and is by far the preeminent global military power. So it’s natural they’re going to engage in more war. If America was addicted to war, Cuba wouldn’t exist
A better argument would be that America, despite the number of levers it tends to use other than war, still ends up using war from time to time. Unfortunately, I think it’s hard to deny that there are situations in the world that cannot be met with anything except military force. The most obvious examples are Rwanda and Kosovo, but it’s hard to deny that it would be difficult to imagine a completely non-military response to groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
4 Comments
It’s not an addiction! We can stop any time we want!
In Foreign Policy, Stephen Walt argues that every modern American president. From Bill Clinton to Donald Trump, leaders who vowed restraint have resorted to military force, with Trump’s second term proving especially bellicose, including renewed strikes on Iran. Walt contends this pattern reflects structural forces rather than individual failings: expanded executive war powers, congressional abdication, deficit financing that shields voters from costs, an all-volunteer force that limits public backlash, and a military-industrial ecosystem that amplifies threats. Precision weapons and low-risk air campaigns further lower the threshold for action. The result, he concludes, is a presidency tempted by an ever-present “big red button”: making war the default instrument of American statecraft.
Sure, but there are good ways of waging war and bad ways of waging war. Kosovo intervention and the Gulf War were both fully justified, effective, and necessary. It is just that every single president since Clinton was god-awful at their jobs.
I feel addiction should be measured against capability and Americans could certainly be engaging in an awful lot more war. The fact of the matter is America is present everywhere and is by far the preeminent global military power. So it’s natural they’re going to engage in more war. If America was addicted to war, Cuba wouldn’t exist
A better argument would be that America, despite the number of levers it tends to use other than war, still ends up using war from time to time. Unfortunately, I think it’s hard to deny that there are situations in the world that cannot be met with anything except military force. The most obvious examples are Rwanda and Kosovo, but it’s hard to deny that it would be difficult to imagine a completely non-military response to groups like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.