The Dire Need For U.S. Long Term Strategic Vision And A Formula For It

Although by far the most powerful country in the world, the U.S. is suffering from a lack of long term vision. The individual citizen is as much at fault for this condition as the politician or the military industrial complex.

From our relationships with each other and with other countries, from corporate board rooms to Wall Street stock run ups, we must use long term strategic vision in lieu of pursuing short term gains.

Polarization, ignoring environmental and  geopolitical realities, engaging in costly war intrusions, neglecting education/infrastructure and accumulating a $38 Trillion National Debt, heavily mortgaging future generations, are all symptoms of our lack of long term strategic vision.

Geopolitical Realities and the US Role

George Friedman accurately addressed the historical geopolitical state in a recent article:

“To put it simply, a vast swath of the Eurasian landmass (understood to be Europe and Asia together) is in political, military and economic disarray.

Drawing on the recollection of Desert Storm  it was assumed that American power could reshape the Islamic world at will after the US was attacked September 11th, 2001. All power has limits, but the limits of American power were not visible until later in the 2000’s.

At that point two other events intervened.

The first was the re-emergence of Russia as at least a regional power when it invaded Georgia in 2008. [The invasion tactic continued with the Ukraine War]

The other was, of course, the financial crisis. Both combined to define the current situation. [COVID continued the strain on the world economy]

The United States is, by far, the worlds most powerful nation, That does not mean that the United States can — or has an interest to — solve the problems of the world, contain the forces that are at work or stand in front of those forces and compel them to stop. Even the toughest guy in the bar can’t take on the entire bar and win.”

China the Peace Maker 

David Grammig enlightens us in an article in “Geopolitical Monitor “to an alternative to war and debt laden international finance being practiced by the Chinese:

“Geopolitical calculations are as much a reason for this 2-trillion-dollar project as economic ones.

The OBOR project represented one of China’s new overarching foreign policy goals, and it demonstrated a willingness and ability to challenge old power structures, especially in Central Asia and the Middle East.

The Silk Road, or OBOR project, aimed at creating an enormous economic bloc and fostering trade, cultural exchange, political collaboration, and military cooperation among its members – under Chinese domination. [ The recent military competition against U.S. interests and associated weapons buildup by China with threats to Taiwan served as a diversion from China’s overarching foreign policy goals through the Silk Road Project]

An obvious competitor against Russia’s Eurasian Union and India’s Act East and Connect Central Asia initiatives, the OBOR project had many Central Asian and Middle Eastern states justifiably worried of being caught up in a race for dominance in the region, producing somewhat cautious reactions to China’s big plans. Yet, some countries in the region – even those torn by sectarian conflict – may still be inclined to step into a new age due to China’s vast investments and its associated desire to protect its economic engagements.

The United States and its military interventions on the other hand, which aimed at securing political influence and protecting economic interests, bore no sustainable fruits and have led to growing instability in the region. Furthermore, US policy in the Middle East yielded anti-American resentment in the public and political spheres.

China’s approach, however, will most likely not lead to demonstrations, burning flags, and attacks against its embassies, because it will not be seen as a war-mongering imperialistic force, giving itself a chance to establish itself as a partner whose outstretched hand is worth taking.”

The US Market Mirage 

Rana Foroohar demonstrates in Time Magazine how the folly of short term thinking often drives poor investment in the stock market when assessing the value of companies:

“One of the hardest-dying ideas in economics is that stock price accurately reflects the fundamental value of a given firm. It’s easy to understand why this misunderstanding persists: price equals value is a simple idea in a complex world. But the truth is that the value of firms in the market and their value within the real economy are, as often as not, disconnected. In fact, the Street regularly punishes firms hardest when they are making the decisions that most enhance their real economic value, causing their stock price to sink.

There are thousands of examples I could cite, but here’s a particularly striking one: the price of Apple stock fell roughly 25% the year it introduced the iPod. The technology that would kick-start the greatest corporate turnaround in the history of capitalism initially disappointed, selling only 400,000 units in its debut year, and the company’s stock reflected that. Thankfully, Steve Jobs didn’t give a fig. He stuck with the idea, and today nine Apple i Devices are sold somewhere in the world every second.  CEOs, who are paid mostly in stock and live in fear of being punished by the markets, race to hit the numbers rather than simply making the best decisions for their businesses long term. One National Bureau of Economic Research study found that 80% of executives would forgo innovation-generating spending if it meant missing their quarterly earnings figures.

Nobody–not Economists, not CEOs and not policymakers–thinks that’s good for real economic growth. Yet the markets stay up because of the dysfunctional feedback loops. Eventually, of course, interest rates will rise, money won’t be cheap anymore, and markets will go back down. None of it will reflect the reality on the ground, for companies or consumers, any more than it did during the boom times.”

Achieving Strategic Vision

From the above analysis by experts, it is apparent that the US is in dire need of strategic vision.  To achieve it we must:

Face  environmental, geopolitical and economic realities, stop war interventions and invest in relationships within and without our country by offering mutual collaboration.

Cease dwelling on threat and build long term infrastructure, education and international development.  The threats will melt away.

Invest for the long term at the stock holder, company and  national levels based on a strategy dealing with present day and long term challenges in education, communication and society value transitions.

Elect a Congress and an Administration that knows how to strike a balance between long and short term actions. We must then let them know what we think regularly by communicating with them.

Know that most cultures and societies in upheaval today are watching our national model and choosing whether or not to support it, ignore it or attack it.

The Road To A $1 Trillion U.S. Defense Budget

“NATIONAL SECURITY JOURNAL” By Brent M. Eastwood

“A trillion here and a trillion there. Pretty soon, you are talking about…a big problem. That is the projected defense budget cost in the coming years—a cool one trillion—and perhaps even more.“

_____________________________________________________________________________

“In 2022, the defense budget was still only 3 percent of GDP. During the Cold War, it was much higher. So, comparing the level of spending to the size of the economy is a different way to look at it.

But that top-level number is certainly eye-watering.

Even though the United States is not currently in a major shooting war, it is still confronted by the growth of great power and rising power rivalries with China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran, plus contingencies in the Middle East. That means more spending is required to keep up.

Let’s examine the reasons for high costs and where the U.S. defense budget could be headed in the years to come, especially in the era of great power competition.

Major Defense Hardware Programs Are What People Criticize the Most

Most people associate defense spending with expensive major-end items, and these are budget busters. Existing programs like the F-35 have been a money pit. New toys such as the B-21 Raider stealth bomber, the newfangled Next-generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter, and the Ford-class aircraft carrier are costly. All acquisition programs cost $146 billion in 2023.

Personnel Costs Are Rampant

Other costs that are not readily apparent are personnel costs for the U.S. military uniformed service and the civilian service for the Pentagon. Salaries are expensive. Healthcare costs for active duty personnel and their families are out of this world. Retirement pensions also have heavy sunken costs in the budget. That’s a total of $184 billion a year and rising.

Parochial Interest Over Defense Jobs and Economic Development

The United States is also doing what it hasn’t done since the Cold War: bringing on new weapons, funding legacy systems, and spending more on research and development—all at once.

Something has to give because congressional lawmakers and politicians of all stripes want defense jobs in their neighborhoods, and that means continued spending on all of the above.

Overseas Operations Are Not Cheap

The Pentagon has other costs. There is a sprawling number of overseas installations and bases, plus new base construction and sustainability on our continent. There is an unending supply of money that goes to special operations forces. There is maintenance of existing weapons. Let’s round up and call that around $55 billion.

Ammunition, missiles, and bombs are expensive. Peacekeeping operations and disaster relief are also part of the budget equation.

Funding Allies for Their Wars

We may not be fighting any major wars, but allies are. Tens of billions of dollars have gone to Ukraine for its war against Russia. Money goes out the door to Israel to fight its war against Hamas. Funds are also required to help Egypt with its defense forces, plus aid to several other countries. The estimated cost is $100 billion.

What to Do With Old Hardware and Ammunition?

Other costs that people don’t consider are destroying old equipment, storing out-of-date hardware, and placing retired airplanes in a “Boneyard” in Arizona. All of this costs money.

This totals $916 billion in 2023, or 13 percent of the federal budget. That’s twice as much as all of the NATO countries and 40 percent of all spending worldwide. In a few years, it seems sure we will top over $1 trillion.

Cutting the Budget? How?

Where can the United States cut the budget? You may have noticed that I am a military analyst who is often in love with big-ticket military hardware. I can find a reason to fund numerous new programs and sustain legacy weapons. So, I’m probably guilty on the defense acquisition side for an advocate to plus-up spending.

Nobody wants to cut the pay of active-duty or reserve forces. All earn their healthcare, housing, and retirement pensions, and there is no political will to change that. Look for personnel costs to increase every year.

To be a world leader, the United States needs to maintain a forward presence worldwide. Treaties require some of this, such as the need for bases in South Korea, like the sprawling Camp Humphreys, which houses a big part of the American presence on the peninsula.

Military R&D Is Important Too

We need research and development, not only for the future of the military but also to sustain the defense industrial base that has spawned great dual-use technological transformations and seed funding for GPS and the Internet.

Many Watchdogs Already Exist

How about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse or ending bad acquisition systems?

Federal government agencies such as the Defense Contract Management Agency and the Government Accountability Office already closely monitor most defense programs. Congress, nonprofits, think tanks, and the defense media also monitor potential overspending.

With the 24/7 internet-driven press oversight and social media, there are few secrets about defense wastefulness and many watchful eyes to shine a light on problems. One could argue that programs should be eliminated early, such as the terrible U.S. Littoral Combat Ship or the questionable V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. But these cancellations would not make much of a difference in the overall budget.

Can the United States Back off on Equipment?

A group of non-profits and think tanks are calling for more restraint in foreign policy and fighting American overreach in defense spending. But they have difficulty breaking through the noise in Washington, DC, with so many other domestic problems that need solutions.

The Defense Train Keeps Chugging Along

So, the defense train is almost unstoppable. We are in for a penny and in for a pound nowadays. Don’t look for Republicans and Democrats to cut military spending that much. The price is too baked into the system. We are going to see trillion-dollar defense budgets in the coming years, and most people will not even notice. The Federal Reserve Bank can continue to print money to fund the defense budget, and a high deficit is not enough to scare the public off from supporting or ignoring more defense spending. Buckle in for a bumpy ride.”

About the Author: Dr. Brent M. Eastwood

Brent M. Eastwood, PhD, is the author of Don’t Turn Your Back On the World: a Conservative Foreign Policy and Humans, Machines, and Data: Future Trends in Warfare, plus two other books. Brent was the founder and CEO of a tech firm that predicted world events using artificial intelligence. He served as a legislative fellow for U.S. Senator Tim Scott and advised the senator on defense and foreign policy issues. He has taught at American University, George Washington University, and George Mason University. Brent is a former U.S. Army Infantry officer. He can be followed on X @BMEastwood.   

12 Names on a Wall in Washington D.C. Forgotten By Many But Not By Me

PLEASE CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE

VETERANS DAY - 11 NOVEMBER 2025

To those who died serving USAECAV  Countrywide  

http://thewall-usa.com/ 

  Database of the 58,195 Names on The Wall in Washington D.C. This is the most accurate database online.

 

For Veterans Day 2025 – What Can Be Learned To Avoid Future ‘Walls Of Faces'?

Vietnam War Wall of Faces

 

Our active duty military soldiers are the best in the world to defend us if war occurs.  They cannot defend against the financial influence and political weight of the largest military industrial complex in world history.  Managing  that threat is the voters job. 

What I have learned in two combat tours and 36 years in the weapons systems business is that someone different than I may not have the same value system as I possess, but by learning from them I will be able to make distinctions between my values and theirs. 

That permits me to consider accepting the differences between us without prejudice, communicate with them and move forward on common objectives.All wars eventually result in negotiated settlements. Avoiding them by learning and negotiation in the first place is the most effective war weapon and by far the least costly in materials, debt and lives. 

As a participant in warfare and weapons over the last half century I have learned a considerable amount about

TWO MAJOR DRIVING FACTORS IN OUR RECENT WAR HISTORY

FACTOR 1 - GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR  MOTIVES:

The motives of the U.S. Military Industrial Complex (MIC) and The US Agency for International Development (USAID) contractors fostered continuing wars. Continued wars net billions in sales of weapons and massive construction and redevelopment dollars for contracting companies.

It is common knowledge that many of these corporations spend more each year in lobbying costs than they pay in taxes and pass exorbitant overhead and executive pay costs on to the tax payer, thus financing the riches of their operating personnel while remaining marginally profitable to stockholders.

I watched this from the inside of many of these companies for 36 years. You can read my dissertation on the subject at:

Odyssey of Armaments | Ken Larson - Academia.edu

Here is an example of how the lobbying and behind the scenes string-pulling worked during the run up and the conduct of the war incursion into Iraq: 

CorpWatch : US: Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels

DRIVING FACTOR 2 - LACK OF CULTURAL UNDERSTANDING 

There has been a  complete lack of cultural understanding between U.S. decision makers and the cultures they have been trying to "Assist" by nation building. 

The only real cultural understanding that existed during the period was in the person of General Schwarzkopf who spent much of his youth in the Middle East with his father, an ambassador to Saudi Arabia. He was fascinated by the Arab culture, commanded their respect and, like Eisenhower, led a successful coalition during the first Gulf War to free Kuwait.  

He astutely recommended no occupation of Iraq, went home and stayed out of government. Norman, like General Eisenhower, knew the power of the MIC. 

Eisenhower's Departing Speech

U.S Tax payers funded billions in USAID and construction projects in Iraq. The money was wasted due to a lack of cultural understanding, waste,  fraud and abuse. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) has documented that aspect of the Iraq war history, as well as similar motives and abuses in Afghanistan. 

POGO on Iraq

We now have history repeating itself - much like Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan and now the Gaza conflict, the above two factors are deeply at play as we look back over our shoulder.

We must come to the understanding, like a highly respected war veteran and West Point instructor has, that military victory is dead:

“Victory’s been defeated; it’s time we recognized that and moved on to what we actually can accomplish."

Military Victory is Dead

Frank Spinney is an expert on the MIC. He spent the same time I did on the inside of the Pentagon while I worked Industry. You may find his interviews informative.

Inside the Pentagon: 30-Year Insider Chuck Spinney

THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSIONS:  

The two major war making factors discussed here have been in play from Vietnam, the Balkans, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine and now to the continued Middle East bedlam. 

Political and military values on both sides of a world conflict collide when governments and weapons makers treasure the economic windfalls in collective military industrial technology and refuse to negotiate. Soldiers and civilians then die. 

Our near term future as a country involves weighty decisions regarding our fiscal and national security.  There will be trade-offs. We have now exceeded a National Debt of $38 Trillion with a downgraded fiscal credit rating while carrying the financial burden of ongoing support for NATO and the Ukraine war, the Middle East Gaza conflict, as well as domestic program needs. 

 A look over our shoulder at the two driving factors in our recent warfare is useful when viewing our future while making prudent decisions regarding our future financial and defense security. Every U.S. citizen from the individual voter to the politician must consider them. 

Effective negotiation must involve learning the other party's values, not simply the perceived threat they represent to us because we do not know them.

From the neighborhood to the boardroom, from the statehouse to the Congress, we would do well to learn more about those different from us before we fight.

Veterans Day 2025 - Remembering Two Of Hastings, Minnesota’s Unforgettable Veterans

Vietnam Veteran Gordon Schmidt

I often met Gordy Schmidt at Lake Rebecca in Hastings on one of his many long walks.
I would fish and he would take in some sun along the trails and at the park. 

I learned of his tremendous craftsmanship with wood and also observed his love of gardening.  

Together with Doug, his gardening buddy at the Vets home, the two had beautiful showcases every year. Gordy specialized in flowers and Doug was the vegetable expert.  I worked with them to get soil samples sent to the U of M and watched their artistry through my window in Building 25 just above the Vermillion River.

Another fond memory is Gordy's keen eye for dangerous tree limbs along the trails and holes in the ground in the parks that could break an ankle.  Together we would take photos of the dangerous areas and send an email to my contacts at the city parks department and they would come out to cut the limbs and fill the holes.  With 25 miles of trails to maintain, they appreciated Gordy's keen eye.

We miss Gordy and his artistry in several venues. 

World War II and Korean War Veteran Bob 

I first met Bob on the shore of Lake Rebecca near Hastings, Minnesota in 2006.   He was perched on a small stool catching sunfish which I later learned he carefully cleaned on a glass-topped coffee table in his garage. He then cooked them for his lady friend Myra, pictured at the lower left in the above photo with Bob.   

I fished with Bob for the next 5 years, until his health became too frail to make it to the lake he had frequented for well over 70 years. 

I learned Bob was a decorated combat veteran of WW II and the Korean War, who had been shot down twice over Europe flying B-17's. Bob and I often discussed our combat experiences,  he in his era and I in mine.  He was a big help in my recovery from PTSD.

After his service abroad,  Bob returned to Hastings where he was a fixture at the Hastings Country Club, managing the facility for many years while also establishing a musical instrument retail store and a couple restaurants in the area.

I brought some Veteran friends who were golf enthusiasts by Bob's garage at his invitation, where he would wander down a line of equipment he had accumulated over the years, filling up a bag with clubs, balls and other tools for the links, then hand it to each vet as a gift or for a pittance if the man felt he had to pay. 

Bob was a self-effacing man who liked a laugh and a good story;  he had many to tell, with his roles in business and social settings as well as foreign travel and wars.   I met several local, prominent people through Bob, which contributed to my feel for the community.  I admired his easy, friendly demeanor with everyone. 

Bob often asked me to accompany he and Myra to the local casino for dinner.  I noted he had the same look on his face when he was playing the slots as he did when he was fishing - always waiting for that big one. I met Bob's two adopted daughters, and many of his extended family in the area and in Canada. His daughter, Jean is pictured with Bob at the lower right in the above photo.

Bob Niederkorn was a genuine, generous individual who served his country, his community and his friends from his heart. 

We miss him at Lake Rebecca,

Three Ways Veteran Business Owners Can Access Capital

 

"FEDERAL TIMES" By Terry Hill

"Veteran-owned businesses are a vital part of the U.S. economy, making up approximately 6% of all businesses, employing nearly four million workers and contributing over $177 billion in annual payroll to the U.S. economy. Despite this impact, many face unique business challenges, particularly when it comes to accessing the capital needed to grow.

For veterans looking to start or grow a business, the right capital setup is key to unlocking your business’s full potential. Here are a few tips to ensure you’re setting yourself up for success."

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Time spent in service significantly delays the ability to build credit, network business connections and tap into available resources—all of which are imperative for gaining a foothold in the business world.

For veterans looking to start or grow a business, the right capital setup is key to unlocking your business’s full potential. Here are a few tips to ensure you’re setting yourself up for success:

Build and Bolster Your Business Plan

A robust business plan is essential to securing capital with banks or potential investors, whether it’s for seed funding or a late-stage capital raise. This plan serves as a roadmap to assess your business and helps bankers and investors determine if they want to form a relationship with your company.

Your plan should include defined business objectives, target markets and customers, and plans for how you will promote your product or service. From there, you’ll be able to provide estimates for how much capital is needed to execute against these objectives.

Establish Credit to Become Bankable

Your credit score is often the first metric lenders look at to evaluate you as a potential candidate for capital. If you’re an established business, they will review your business credit. But if you’re just starting out, lenders will turn to your personal credit score.

Building and maintaining a good credit score is difficult for many Americans, but for veterans—especially those who have moved frequently or spent time overseas—establishing a strong credit history to support their score can be a particular challenge. This requires a track record of consistent payment history on credit cards and personal loans, such as student loans and mortgage payments. However, during active duty, service members may not have had opportunities to build that track record.

For those who don’t have a strong credit track record, there are myriad ways to improve your credit, such as paying rent and utility bills on time and, if applicable, opening up a first credit card to begin building a strong repayment history. If you have outstanding debt, focus on settling accounts in collections and paying down high-interest debts. Also be sure to review your credit report for errors prior to walking into a meeting with a potential investor.

If you have personal credit, but are looking to build business credit, consider applying for a business credit card. Using it for smaller bills each month, and then paying it off in full before payment is due, can help to increase your score. Doing business with different vendors who work with business credit reporting agencies can also help this process. As you buy supplies and materials from vendors, those purchases and payments get reported to the business credit agencies and, in turn, get tacked on to your credit history.

While trying to build or improve your credit score may feel like an uphill battle, it’s a critical first piece in showing that you are bankable, and that you’re someone that both banks and investors will be excited to work with.

Identify Resources to Help Meet Your Goal

Once you’ve completed a business plan and begun to build – or improve – your credit, it’s time to look to your network. Whether you’re just finding your footing in the business world or looking to take an established business to the next level, having a network of experts you can tap into for guidance is invaluable.

There are a number of education and networking programs specifically designed for veterans and veteran-owned businesses that serve as a great starting point, including: Syracuse University, and Veterans Business Outreach Center. These organizations are focused on the military entrepreneurial community and provide incredible programming, resources, mentorship and guidance to help veterans overcome key challenges.

In addition to seeking out specific educational and networking programs, veteran-owned businesses should strongly consider getting certified through the  System For Award Management (SAM) Site, as it helps you become eligible for federal contracts set aside specifically for retired military. It also enables access to VA-provided resources, such as business training, mentoring, and networking, all of which are essential for businesses as they become more established.

Accessing new capital can feel daunting, especially when you’re just getting started. But with proper planning and the right resources on your side, the likelihood of success is much greater. Time in the service has taught every veteran vital lessons.Never lose sight of the fact that your discipline, passion, resilience and resourcefulness is your company’s biggest asset. If you stay true to who you are and are thoughtful in your approach, the sky is the limit."

Three ways veteran business owners can access capital

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Terry Hill is Managing Director, Co-head of Veteran Initiatives, at JPMorgan Chase Commercial Banking.

A Different Path to War

 

"WAR ON THE ROCKS" By Christphopher Preble

"Americans today enjoy a measure of safety that our ancestors would envy and that our contemporaries do envy. We generally do not need to wage war to keep it that way.

On the contrary, some recent wars have degraded the U.S. military and undermined our security. Policymakers should therefore be extremely reluctant to risk American lives abroad."

___________________________________________________________________________________

"The U.S. military is the finest fighting force in the world; it comprises dedicated professionals who are willing and able to fight almost anywhere, practically on a moment’s notice. Any military large enough to defend our vital national security interests will always be capable of intervening in distant disputes. But that does not mean that it should. Policymakers have an obligation to carefully weigh the most momentous decision that they are ever asked to make. These criteria can help.

Any nation with vast power will be tempted to use it. In this respect, the United States is exceptional because its power is so immense. Small, weak countries avoid fighting in distant disputes; the risk that troops, ships, or planes sent elsewhere will be unavailable for defense of the homeland generally keeps these nations focused on more proximate dangers. The U.S. government, by contrast, doesn’t have to worry that deploying U.S. forces abroad might leave America vulnerable to attack by powerful adversaries.

There is another factor that explains the United States’ propensity to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy: Americans are a generous people, and we like helping others. We have often responded favorably when others appeal to us for assistance. Many Americans look back proudly on the moments in the middle and latter half of the 20th century when the U.S. military provided the crucial margin of victory over Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union.

But, in recent years, Americans have grown more reluctant to send U.S. troops hither and yon. There is a growing appreciation of the fact that Washington’s willingness to intervene abroad – from Somalia and the Balkans in the 1990s, to Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s, to Libya and Yemen in the present decades – has often undermined U.S. security. We have become embroiled in disputes that we don’t understand and rarely can control. Thus, public anxiety about becoming sucked into another Middle Eastern civil war effectively blocked overt U.S. intervention in Syria in 2013, notwithstanding President Obama’s ill-considered red line warning to Bashar al Assad.

But while the American people are unenthusiastic about armed intervention, especially when it might involve U.S. ground troops, most Washington-based policy elites retain their activist instincts. They believe that U.S. military intervention generally advances global security and that the absence of U.S. leadership invites chaos. The essays in this series, “Course Correction,” have documented the many reasons why these assumptions might not be true. The authors have urged policymakers to consider other ways for the United States to remain engaged globally – ways that do not obligate the American people to bear all the costs and that do not obligate U.S. troops to bear all the risks.

But the authors do not presume that the United States must never wage war. There are indeed times when it should. Policymakers should, however, keep five specific guidelines in mind before supporting military intervention, especially the use of ground troops. Doing so would discipline our choices, would clearly signal when the U.S. military is likely to be deployed abroad, and could empower others to act when the United States does not.

Vital U.S. National Security Interest at Stake

The United States should not send U.S. troops into harm’s way unless a vital U.S. national security interest is at stake. Unfortunately, the consensus in Washington defines U.S. national security interests too broadly. Protecting the physical security of the territory of the United States and ensuring the safety of its people are vital national security interests. Advancing U.S. prosperity is an important goal, but it is best achieved by peaceful means, most importantly through trade and other forms of voluntary exchange. Similarly, the U.S. military should generally not be used to spread U.S. values, such as liberal democracy and human rights. It should be focused on defending this country from physical threats. The military should be poised to deter attacks and to fight and win the nation’s wars if deterrence fails.

The criterion offered here is more stringent, for example, than the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, which held that U.S. troops should not be sent overseas “unless the particular engagement or occasion is deemed vital to our national interest or that of our allies.” By effectively equating U.S. national interests with those of our allies, it allowed for a range of interventions that would not be considered automatically valid under the guidelines spelled out here.  Policymakers should not risk the lives of U.S. troops to protect others’ interests as though those interests were our own.

Clear National Consensus

The American people must understand why they are being asked to risk blood and treasure and, crucially, they must have a say in whether to do so. The U.S. military should not be engaged in combat operations overseas unless there is a clear national consensus behind the mission.

Although modern technology allows constituents to communicate their policy preferences easily, traditional methods are just as effective in ascertaining whether the American people support the use of force. We should rely on the tool written into the Constitution: the stipulation that Congress alone, not the president, possesses the power to take the country to war.

As Gene Healy notes in this series, Congress has regularly evaded its obligations. Although the U.S. military has been in a continuous state of war over the past 15 years, few in Congress have ever weighed in publicly on the wisdom or folly of any particular foreign conflict. Some now interpret Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty or United Nations Security Council resolutions as obligating the United States to wage war without explicit authorization from Congress. This is unacceptable. The president may repel attacks against the United States, but the authority to deploy U.S. forces abroad, and to engage in preemptive or preventative wars of choice, resides with Congress — and by extension the people — of the United States.

Understanding of the Costs—and How to Pay Them

We must also understand the costs of war and know how we will pay them before we choose to go down that path. We cannot accurately gauge popular support for a given military intervention overseas if the case for war is built on unrealistic expectations and best-case scenarios. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and there is certainly no such thing as a free war.

Deficit spending allows the federal government to pretend otherwise. Politicians make promises, with bills coming due long after they’ve left office. But we should expect more when it comes to the use of force. Advocates for a military intervention should be forced to frame their solution in relation to costs and benefits. The debit side of the ledger includes the long-term costs of care for the veterans of the conflict. Hawks must also explain what government expenditures should be cut – or taxes increased – to pay for their war. The American people should have the final say in choosing whether additional military spending to prosecute minor, distant conflicts is worth the cost, including the opportunity costs: the crucial domestic priorities that must be forgone or future taxes paid.

Clear and Obtainable Military Objectives

We cannot compare the costs or wisdom of going to war if we do not know what our troops will be asked to do. The U.S. military should never be sent into harm’s way without a set of clear and obtainable military objectives.

Such considerations do not apply when a country’s survival is at stake. But wars of choice — the types of wars that the United States has fought in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and elsewhere — are different. Advocates for such wars must demonstrate not only that the fight is necessary to secure vital U.S. interests, that it has public support, and that it has funding, but also that the military’s mission is defined and attainable.

Military victory is rarely sufficient, however, as our recent wars and interventions demonstrate. In the case of regime-change wars, ensuring that a successful transition to a stable, friendly government occurs can take a considerable amount of time and resources. Whatever replaces the defeated forces must represent a marked improvement in order for the war to advance U.S. vital interests. U.S. leaders, therefore, must not only define the military objective, but also detail what the resultant peace will look like, and how we will know the mission is complete.

It is easy for Washington to start wars, but we cannot leave U.S. troops on the hook for ending them. Policymakers must account for the tendency of war to drag on for years or more, and they must plan for an acceptable exit strategy before committing troops.

Use of Force as a Last Resort

The four criteria above are not enough to establish a war’s legitimacy, or the wisdom of waging it. After all, modern nation-states have the ability to wreak unimaginable horror on a massive scale. That obviously doesn’t imply that they should. Thus, the fifth and final rule concerning military intervention is force should be used only as a last resort, after we have exhausted other means for resolving a foreign policy challenge that threatens vital U.S. national security interests.

This point is informed by centuries-old concepts of justice. Civilized societies abhor war, even those waged for the right reasons while adhering to widely respected norms, such as proportionality and reasonable protections for noncombatants. War, given its uncertainty and destructiveness, should never be entered into lightly or for trivial reasons.

America has an exceptional capacity for waging war. U.S. policymakers therefore have a particular obligation to remember that war is a last resort. Precisely because no one else is likely to constrain them, they must constrain themselves.

Conclusion

U.S. foreign policy should contain a built-in presumption against the use of force. That does not mean that war is never the answer, but rather that it is rarely the best answer. Americans today enjoy a measure of safety that our ancestors would envy and that our contemporaries do envy. We generally do not need to wage war to keep it that way. On the contrary, some recent wars have degraded the U.S. military and undermined our security. Policymakers should therefore be extremely reluctant to risk American lives abroad.

The U.S. military is the finest fighting force in the world; it comprises dedicated professionals who are willing and able to fight almost anywhere, practically on a moment’s notice. Any military large enough to defend our vital national security interests will always be capable of intervening in distant disputes. But that does not mean that it should."

A Different Path to War