Follow us on social

We are Better off Empowering Nations, Rather than Bombing them

We are Better off Empowering Nations, Rather than Bombing them

To create peace and stability in other nations, we must elevate their people to prosperity, instead of crushing them.

Analysis | Global Crises

In the aftermath of September 11, almost everyone was convinced that a quick and powerful military response would teach them an unforgettable lesson. We thought this would prevent future threats to our homeland and ultimately make the world a better place.

We were wrong.

The ensuing American military campaigns in the Middle East proved themselves to be costly mistakes with many unintended consequences. What began as an isolated counterinsurgency in Afghanistan quickly spread to Iraq, Libya, Syria, and most recently, Yemen. And for the trillions of dollars the United States spends engaging in its so-called "war on terror,” it is rewarded with more extremism, poverty, and spiralling death tolls across the increasingly destabilized Middle East.

If stability and democracy were the goals, neither were ever achieved.

If we want lasting peace and prosperity for other nations (rather than short-lived military victories), we need to help these countries grow. Put simply, we should spend less on advancing drone warfare and more on building schools.

Although the costs of war have been heavily criticized, it still raises eyebrows when compared to some recent controversial policy issues at home. Consider the following figure that shows multiple legislative items and their respective costs.

Screen-shot-2020-02-07-at-11.01.33-am

First, notice the cost of war. Recent estimates of the total cost of the wars (since 2001) is around $5.9 trillion, based on expenditures from the U.S. Treasury and future commitments (including the medical and disability claims of U.S. war veterans). This cost is several orders of magnitude greater than any other internal policy issue (for instance, it is 6 times the cost of the 10-year Obamacare plan and 15 times the annual cost of public education in the U.S.). The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers at least $757 billion and $975 billion respectively. The two sums are more than enough to cancel out all student debt — a promise made by several 2020 presidential contenders.

In addition to the obvious military costs, there are many hidden costs for our many missed opportunities,  the chance of investing war dollars in alternative sectors and to tackle the problems in radically different ways to create a much more prosperous future for the people of these countries. Unfortunately, prosperity was never an intention.

For perspective, consider the annual costs for education in Iraq and Afghanistan relative to American military spending in the figure below. The United States’ annual military expenditure dwarfs the investments of each country toward their respective education systems. Imagine if the United States chose to dedicate part of its military budget toward securing access to education for the millions of children (1.2 million Iraqi and 3.7 million Afghan children) who have yet to step inside of a classroom and are most vulnerable to recruitment and radicalization. 

Screen-shot-2020-02-07-at-11.01.43-am

Suppose the United States chose to prioritize a non-military intervention over warfare in its quest to counter the influence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda? Imagine an alternative world where, instead of relying on troops unfamiliar with the multifaceted societies of Afghanistan and Iraq, we empowered their citizens: by investing in their infrastructure, hospitals and schools; financing educational programs, and creating incentives for trade.

It is in the interest of the United States (and other world powers) to help build a prosperous Middle East; A prosperity that allows all citizens, not just the wealthy few, to have access to education, to be connected to the world, and trade freely is good for us all.

If we want to cultivate a culture of tolerance, we must facilitate interactions between our cultures.  Entrepreneurs in Baghdad and Gaza should be encouraged to trade and connect with businesspeople based out of New York and Tel Aviv. By harnessing these opportunities to communicate, we can work toward achieving understanding and mutual respect.

Unfortunately, we have taken several steps backwards by creating divisions, applying sanctions, and making trade more difficult. In an environment that embraces an us vs. them mindset, tolerance is easily abandoned.

The United States is harming itself and the people of other countries by creating an endless cycle of violence. Instead of making us safer, this addiction to warfare leaves our own society in danger by sowing resentment abroad. While war does little to prevent terrorism, empowering societies suffering from the influence of radicalization can help eradicate it.


Students leaving school in Kabul, Afghanistan. September 2019 (via Shutterstock)||
Analysis | Global Crises
Rand Paul Donald Trump
Top photo credit: Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) (Shutterstock/Mark Reinstein) and President Trump (White House/Molly Riley)

Rand Paul to Trump: Don't 'abandon' MAGA over Maduro regime change

Washington Politics

Sen. Rand Paul said on Friday that “all hell could break loose” within Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition if the president involves the U.S. further in Ukraine, and added that his supporters who voted for him after 20 years of regime change wars would "feel abandoned" if he went to war and tried to topple Nicolas Maduro, too.

President Trump has been getting criticism from some of his supporters for vowing to release the files of the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and then reneging on that promise. Paul said that the Epstein heat Trump is getting from MAGA will be nothing compared to if he refuses to live up to his “America First” foreign policy promises.

keep readingShow less
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.