For decades, the United States has pursued a foreign policy that places our military in harm’s way across the globe, often without clear objectives or an end in sight. We’ve acted as the world’s police, engaging in conflicts, peacekeeping operations, and strategic deployments that have cost American lives, drained resources, and alienated allies. It’s time we step back and reconsider the direction of our foreign policy, advocating for a strategy of strength coupled with restraint. We can do better—for our troops, our people, and the world.
A Never-Ending Role as the World’s Police
From Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine, Syria, and the African continent, the U.S. has consistently found itself embroiled in conflicts that, more often than not, lack a clear benefit for the American people. While some of these missions have been motivated by noble intentions—combating terrorism, protecting human rights, or ensuring global stability—they’ve frequently led to prolonged engagements that do more harm than good.
Take Iraq, for example. The initial invasion in 2003 was premised on the existence of weapons of mass destruction that were never found. Nearly two decades later, we still have troops stationed in the region, not as liberators but as a lingering force attempting to stabilize a country still reeling from civil war, sectarian violence, and ISIS. The human cost is staggering: thousands of American soldiers dead, tens of thousands wounded, and an Iraqi civilian population that continues to suffer. What have we truly gained?
Similarly, in Afghanistan, after 20 years of war and the loss of more than 2,400 American lives, the U.S. withdrawal left the Taliban back in control. The lofty goals of nation-building and democratization were never realized, and the abrupt withdrawal highlighted a sobering reality—military might alone cannot reshape societies or build lasting peace.
The Cost of Military Adventurism
One of the most striking examples of the consequences of U.S. military overreach is our involvement in Syria. With roughly 900 troops still on the ground supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces in their fight against ISIS, we are far from the front pages, but still very much engaged. This ongoing presence raises the question: why? The ISIS threat has largely diminished, and Syria’s civil war is not one we can solve. Yet, American soldiers remain, risking their lives in a conflict that has no direct bearing on our national security.
In Africa, U.S. troops are scattered across the continent, from Somalia to Niger, engaged in counterterrorism efforts against al-Shabaab, Boko Haram, and ISIS-affiliated groups. While the intent may be noble, these interventions often lack coherent strategies or measurable success. Worse, they frequently destabilize regions further, fostering resentment and creating more enemies than they eliminate.
The Impact on American Lives and Resources
The consequences of these endless engagements extend beyond the battlefield. Every dollar spent on foreign military operations is a dollar that could be used to improve the lives of Americans here at home. We’ve poured trillions into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, all while neglecting pressing domestic needs like infrastructure, education, and healthcare.
Furthermore, these conflicts have taken an immeasurable toll on our servicemen and women. The physical and mental scars of war—traumatic brain injuries, PTSD, and broken families—linger long after the fighting stops. We owe it to our troops to send them into harm’s way only when absolutely necessary, with clear objectives and an exit strategy.
Strong, But Restrained: A Better Path Forward
It’s time for a shift—a move toward a foreign policy that is strong, but restrained. America can and should remain a global leader, but we must be selective in how and when we engage militarily. The goal should be clear: protect American interests and values, but avoid entangling ourselves in endless conflicts that drain our resources and cost American lives.
A restrained foreign policy doesn’t mean isolationism; it means smart engagement. We should invest in diplomacy, economic partnerships, and global cooperation. Rather than sending troops to police the world, we can lead by example, showing that peace, stability, and prosperity are achieved through collaboration, not force.
Take, for instance, our involvement in Ukraine. Instead of putting American boots on the ground, we’ve provided strategic military aid and intelligence, allowing Ukrainians to defend their sovereignty. This is an example of how we can support our allies without becoming directly involved in the conflict. We must be judicious in providing support—helping where we can, but not committing ourselves to conflicts where our national interests are unclear.
Leading by Example
The United States has always been a beacon of hope, liberty, and democracy. But we cannot continue to act as the world’s police without considering the consequences. Our military engagements around the world have led to destabilization, resentment, and a drain on our resources. It’s time to practice a foreign policy that reflects our values—strong, yet restrained; principled, but pragmatic.
We can do better. We can set an example for the world by using our power wisely, engaging diplomatically, and focusing on what truly matters—peace, prosperity, and security for the American people. It’s time for a new chapter in U.S. foreign policy, one where we lead by example, not by force. Let’s show the world a better way.
Written By: Stephen Despin Jr. | Founder/Contributor
Add comment
Comments