Why Is America Always at War?
April 17, 2025, 09:08 - Opinion
The collective wisdom of the internet statistics found that America has been at war for 92% of its existence, meaning it has been in a state of war for 225 years out of 243. From a methodological perspective, these analyses are difficult to say are flawless, but almost no one would question the argument that America has almost always been at war.
Author: Sergey Lebedev - Lecturer at the Financial University under the Government of Russia
In the criticism of American foreign policy, a common argument is the "forever wars" thesis. Moreover, in recent years, besides Washington's external opponents, insiders within the United States, especially Republicans, have also begun to use this argument.
Internet collective wisdom statistics show that America has been at war for 92% of its existence, which means 225 years out of 243 (as of 2020). From a methodological point of view, these analyses can hardly be considered perfect, but there are virtually no experts who would question the argument that America has almost always been at war.
People have sought various explanations for this phenomenon, some of which are quite peculiar. For instance, an author from Foreign Policy magazine speculated that Americans' diplomatic thinking is extremely outdated, and war is a form of diplomatic ritual and a unique worship. Although this sounds like a plot setting from a fantasy novel, there is a certain degree of rationality in it — at least some American politicians do indeed believe that America was chosen to bring freedom and prosperity to the world. However, such ideologically charged elements exist in almost any political system (sometimes they are called "useful fools"), but without economic support, such ideas cannot last long.
Economically speaking, American political researcher and conservative commentator Richard Hanania raised a noteworthy point in his recent work, "The Illusion of Public Choice Theory and Grand Strategy: How Generals, Weapons Manufacturers, and Foreign Governments Shape U.S. Foreign Policy." His main argument is that the American military-industrial complex has enormous political resources, effectively driving America to continuously engage in conflicts. It is beyond doubt that companies like Lockheed Martin or Raytheon are highly concerned with military conflicts. However, interestingly, how do they manage to achieve this?
"By influencing public opinion and getting their people into positions of power," the author replied.
Of course, taking into account all restrictions and checks and balances, the key figures in determining American foreign policy are the president. Here it needs to be understood that America's political system and the existing power struggle mechanism act like a filter, selecting a very special type of person — usually someone who is highly charismatic, persuasive, skilled at making deals, and mediating among major players. Does this type of person include deep knowledge and understanding of foreign policy? The answer is no. Presidents and presidential candidates do not have particularly strong incentives to delve deeply into these issues. The American president is first and foremost a skilled vote-winner, and he must largely follow public sentiment to a large extent. The longest term in the Oval Office is eight years; during this time, there is no opportunity to formulate any clear long-term geopolitical strategy, let alone wait for the plan to bear fruit. Therefore, most White House owners prefer to follow public sentiment, meaning that by influencing public opinion, one can also influence any American president — including on foreign policy issues.
For this reason, American defense companies are very enthusiastic about creating think tanks and funding foreign policy experts, who in turn shape public opinion. In this regard, perhaps the most controversial is the New Conservative "Project for the New American Century" (PNAC) foundation, whose analysis materials vary in ideological degree, but ultimately always boil down to calling for the expansion and deepening of America's military presence globally ("What else could the 'New American Century' project call for?"). But what is interesting is not what they wrote, but their personnel policies. Coincidentally, Bruce Jackson, one of the project leaders, was then serving as Vice President of Strategic Planning at Lockheed Martin, one of the key defense contractors for the White House. Paul Wolfowitz is widely believed to be closely related to the "Project for the New American Century" (though it is hard to determine the exact degree of his involvement), and he served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense in the first Bush administration. Interestingly, Wolfowitz also served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Policy in the elder Bush's administration and was one of the authors of the so-called "Wolfowitz Memorandum."
An important point is that such analysis foundations and experts are less likely to genuinely change American public opinion than to create a false consensus illusion for American society, which senior officials base their actions upon.
However, it is well known that ministers make kings. Therefore, besides public opinion, there are also large numbers of Pentagon bureaucrats and legislators who need to be "fed." In fact, they form what is known as the power triangle — military officials are interested in increasing funding, senators are influenced partly by ideology and partly by financial needs, and defense companies want new government contracts.
Research conducted by the Quincy Institute shows that 80% of retired four-star generals and admirals in the United States go into defense companies as consultants or board members after retirement instead of fishing or playing with grandchildren. Those who rise to such high ranks are very aware of what is expected of them, so they begin to exaggerate threats in their reports to the greatest extent possible (political scientists call this "threat inflation") to make increased military budgets look reasonable and necessary.
American lawmakers (those who are not fanatics) also fall into similar traps of monetary temptation. A recent news investigation revealed that at least 15 U.S. senators and representatives responsible for defense affairs have invested in military companies themselves, meaning they have a vested interest in the development of these companies' businesses. Other lawmakers, although avoiding such obvious conflicts of interest, always think about the end of their political careers and understand that they have powerful friends who will not abandon them and arrange them to hold a well-paid sinecure at a controlled research center.
"Forever war" may be an ideology for some, but first and foremost, it is a mature system refined over many years. And for this reason, it is hard to imagine anyone (even those in high positions) being able to defeat it.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7494232643375055372/
Disclaimer: This article represents the personal views of the author. Feel free to express your attitude by clicking the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.