One of the primary beliefs held by the Washington foreign policy establishment for decades is that U.S. “leadership” in the world has been essential to the development of international order and the preservation of international peace.
Defenders of U.S. primacy insist that the world would devolve into chaos and violence if the United States reduced its expansive foreign policy ambitions, and that the only thing holding back the return of the so-called “jungle” is American power. John Mueller takes a sledgehammer to these and other lazy assumptions in his outstanding new book, “The Stupidity of War.” He contends that the strong aversion to international war since 1945 has had more to do with preventing another world war than the development of nuclear weapons or U.S. security guarantees, and he makes a compelling case that this is the cause of the “long peace.”
Mueller goes on to show that Washington has consistently exaggerated foreign threats and overestimated the need for militarized responses to threats that were minimal or non-existent, going all the way back to the earliest days of the Cold War. He persuasively argues the case for what he calls complacency and appeasement: the United States faces few real threats, most of them will diminish or implode before they become a serious problem, and most of the threats that policymakers obsess over are manageable or imaginary. He also challenges one of the central myths about the “liberal international order” by denying that an ambitious U.S. grand strategy was necessary to secure the benefits of postwar democratization and economic growth.
Even if you don’t accept every one of his claims, Mueller has made a powerful case for the virtues of doing far less in the world militarily and exercising restraint in the face of provocations. “The Stupidity of War” makes for bracing reading, and it will force readers from all foreign policy camps to reconsider what they think they know about the history of U.S. foreign policy.
He doesn’t ignore cases that complicate his overall argument, and he acknowledges that there are some occasions where small U.S. military interventions have achieved limited goals. He grants that the small invasions like the interventions in Grenada and Panama in the 1980s qualify as successful uses of force. His willingness to acknowledge the very few exceptions to the rule of postwar U.S. military failure abroad makes his main argument that much stronger.
Simply put, most wars are stupid and wasteful, and they should be avoided.
This is particularly true for the United States, which has the advantage of being extraordinarily secure from physical threats. Even at the height of the Cold War, the actual threat from the Soviet Union was far less than what policymakers imagined, and foreign threats in the last 30 years have been even smaller.
While most advocates for a less aggressive U.S. foreign policy might shy away from the word appeasement, Mueller reclaims the term to restore it to its original meaning. Appeasement has been a curse word hurled against opponents of militaristic policies for the last 75 years because of the unusual events of the late 1930s. It described the efforts of Britain and France at that time to resolve international disputes through diplomatic negotiations to avoid another great war, and because this failed in the face of Hitler’s revanchist aggression, the word has been used to discredit diplomatic compromises ever since.
As Mueller points out, it was appeasement that averted catastrophe in the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, which had the potential to lead to a global conflagration even more murderous than World War II. In general, he says, appeasement succeeds in avoiding stupid wars, and avoiding stupid wars is in the best interests of all concerned.
Hawks continue to conjure up the specter of Munich to justify their preferred policies, but the horrors of WWII already instructed the world in the insanity of wars between the major powers. We should be far less worried about appeasing a would-be aggressor and much more concerned about a militarized foreign policy that overreacts to every possible danger.
“Complacency and appeasement, then, have much to recommend themselves,” Mueller writes, and he is right. U.S. foreign policy has been driven for decades by alarmism and worst-case scenarios, and that has produced militarized excesses that have produced almost uniformly horrible results for the United States and the affected countries. It is long past time that we adopted a very different approach to how our government assesses and responds to potential threats.
The practical implications of Mueller’s argument are straightforward. If the threats to the United States are so few and manageable, there is no need for vast military spending and such a large military. Instead of seeking monsters to destroy, Mueller advises the United States to be patient and wait for the worst regimes to collapse from their own inherent weaknesses. The conceit of defenders of the “liberal international order” is that the current level and projection of American power is essential to maintaining it, and Mueller demonstrates that it simply isn’t so. The U.S. pursuit of global dominance isn’t necessary for our security, and it isn’t essential to maintaining so-called world order, either. It makes no sense for us to do what we have been doing for decades, and we could stop without major adverse consequences.
There are a few comments in the book that may strike restrainers as odd, but they don’t undermine the larger argument. For instance, Mueller repeatedly refers to Iran’s nuclear weapons program as if this were something that still existed at the time of the nuclear negotiations leading to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. No such program existed in the 2010s, and it hadn’t existed since at least 2003. Acknowledging this fact would strengthen Mueller’s larger point that proliferation fears in Washington are overblown. Iran wasn’t seeking to build a nuclear weapon before it agreed to the restrictions contained in the 2015 agreement, and it isn’t seeking to build one now despite their government’s reduced compliance with the agreement in response to U.S. sanctions. An “Iranian bomb” has been an imaginary danger for a long time, and hawks have stoked fears of this possibility to justify continued hostility towards Iran.
One of the most important points that Mueller makes is that the actual costs of wars of “counter-proliferation” have been vastly more expensive and destructive than the proliferation dangers that they were supposed to prevent. The Iraq war is the prime example of this. A war that was sold primarily in terms of eliminating weapons of mass destruction programs ended up killing hundreds of thousands of people and destabilizing the region for years to come. Even if Iraqi unconventional weapons programs had still existed at the time of the invasion, the war would still have been unnecessary and, yes, very stupid. The ongoing obsession with Iran’s evidently peaceful nuclear program shows that most policymakers in Washington still haven’t learned one of the most important lessons of the Iraq war, namely that the possibility of future nuclear proliferation is not so dangerous that it warrants waging a disastrous preventive war.
War is a waste, and diplomacy, or “appeasement,” as Mueller might put it, is often the correct response to difficult international disputes. The post-WWII international order was built on these assumptions, but our policymakers have done a poor job of following them for the last seven decades. Instead of constantly being on the lookout for new monsters to destroy, the U.S. needs to stop imagining threats that aren’t there.
Why John Mueller thinks 'appeasement' might be a better policy
His new book, 'The Stupidity of War,' points out just how destructive US 'counter-proliferation' wars have been.
Daniel Larison
Daniel Larison is a regular columnist at Responsible Statecraft, contributing editor at Antiwar.com, and a former senior editor at The American Conservative magazine. He has a Ph.D. in History from the University of Chicago. He writes regularly for his newsletter, Eunomia, on Substack.
Ukrainian soldiers hold portraits of soldiers father Oleg Khomiuk, 52, and his son Mykyta Khomiuk, 25, during their farewell ceremony on the Independence Square in Kyiv, Ukraine 10 March 2023. The father and son died in the battles for Bakhmut in Donetsk region. (Photo by STR/NurPhoto)
Expert: Ukraine loses 25% of its population
October 22, 2024
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is over two years old, and Kyiv is facing a population crisis. According to Florence Bauer, the U.N. Population Fund’s head in Eastern Europe, Ukraine’s population has declined by around 10 million people, or about 25 percent, since the start of the conflict in 2014, with 8 million of those occurring after Russia began its full-scale invasion in 2022. This report comes a week after Ukrainian presidential adviser Serhiy Leshchenko revealed that American politicians were pushing Zelenskyy to mobilize men as young as 18.
“Population challenges” were already evident before the conflict started, as it matched trends existing in Eastern Europe, but the war has exacerbated the problem. The 6.7 million refugees represent the largest share of this population shift. Bauer also cited a decline in fertility. “The birth rate plummeted to one child per woman – the lowest fertility rate in Europe and one of the lowest in the world,” she told reporters on Tuesday.
Combat losses and civilian casualties have been hard to accurately tally, as Kyiv treats them as a state secret. Best estimates from late 2023 put the number around 70,000, and Bauer confirmed that they are in the “tens of thousands.”
Further decline in Ukraine’s population will likely occur as the war drags on and includes draftees aged 18-25. According to Leshchenko, “American politicians from both parties are putting pressure on President Zelenskyy on the question of why there is no mobilization of those aged 18 to 25 in Ukraine.”
When the war ends, Ukraine will need labor for rebuilding and continued losses are likely to have long-term consequences. George Beebe, Director of Grand Strategy at the Quincy Institute, says,
“Demography is not necessarily destiny, but such shocking projections bode ill for Ukraine’s economic prosperity and societal dynamism,” Quincy Institute Director of Grand Strategy George Beebe wrote in RS last year. “The future they portend is a vicious circle of decline. Under such circumstances, simply manning a substantial standing army as a counter to much more populous Russia would be a challenge for Ukraine, let alone mastering and maintaining a large arsenal of NATO-standard weaponry.” Beebe added, “the more resources it must devote to its military, the fewer it will have for launching new commercial ventures and building a productive civilian economy.”
Ukraine is already dealing with war fatigue, evident from shifts in polling, and in the report that a staggering 51,000 soldiers have deserted from the army this year.
Beebe also points to a demographic study that predicts that Ukraine’s working-age population will decline by a third by 2040, with the number of children declining by half, and adds that “mounting damage is likely to discourage many refugees from returning to Ukraine anytime soon.”
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: Moldova's incumbent President and presidential candidate Maia Sandu casts her ballots at a polling station, as the country holds a presidential election and a referendum on joining the European Union, in Chisinau, Moldova October 20, 2024. REUTERS/Vladislav Culiomza
It was a mistake to make the Moldovan election about Russia
October 21, 2024
Moldova’s election result has left incumbent President Maia Sandu damaged.
An EU referendum delivered only a wafer-thin vote in favor of membership of the bloc. And in the first round of a presidential vote that Western commentators predicted Sandu might edge narrowly, she fell some way short of the 50% vote share she’d need to land a second presidential term. She will now face a unified group of opposition parties in the second round with her chances of remaining in office in the balance.
Where did it all go wrong?
Sandu’s mistake was in making the Moldovan election about a binary choice between Europe and Russia.
Even before the final votes were counted, Sandu was claiming widespread electoral fraud sponsored by pro-Russian oligarch Ilan Shor. Reports that pro-Russian groups paid voters to come out to vote are credible. If that achieved anything, it was to mobilize voters in Moldova naturally inclined to want ties with Russia, rather than flipping votes of pro-Europeans. With a 33% turnout needed to legitimize the plebiscite, a final roll of just 50% hinted at widespread voter apathy in Moldova.
In a country where only 9% of the population identifies as ethnically Russian, an almost 50% vote against EU membership illustrates wider concerns that the government in Chisinau has not addressed domestic issues important to ordinary people. For example, many Moldovans are worried about the race to EU membership undermining small farmers and local traditions.
Sandu’s claims of interference must also be set against a concerted effort by Moldovan authorities to make it harder for Moldovan voters in Russia and breakaway Transnistria, to vote. A mere 10,000 ballot papers were sent to Russia, where the Moldovan population is thought to number over 150,000 people. The population of Transnistria is 367,000, but they were only allowed to vote in Moldova itself. (For the record, Moldova insists that Transnistria is part of Moldova.)
Meanwhile, Shor’s political party was banned and media channels linked to him closed down. In the end, the pro-European referendum passed with a tiny majority, made possible by a large number of pro-European votes by members of the Moldovan diaspora, who don’t live in Russia.
This will make it difficult for Sandu to claim a resounding endorsement of future EU membership. It will almost certainly stoke anti-EU sentiment in the Russia-backed breakaway Transnistria where a majority of the ethnically diverse population wants closer ties with Russia. Pro-Russian sentiment will also be fueled in the autonomous status of Gagauzia in the south, where 95% of voters did not choose a European future in the referendum.
Of course, the Transnistria question, nor, to a lesser extent, that of Gagauzia, shouldn’t necessarily create a bar on possible future EU membership by Moldova, as Cyprus has shown. But by making the referendum about ethno-nationalist politics, Sandu will have stimulated the secessionist tendencies there, making the process of EU integration more problematic.
She also exposes herself to the accusation of letting Moldova become a geo-strategic test-tube for Western influence, something that Russia will undoubtedly look to exploit. European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen was in Chisinau shortly before the vote exhorting Moldovans to express their free choice. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte chose to weigh in with concerns about Russian efforts to derail Moldova’s European future.
These pronouncements are imbued with notions that Moldovan membership of the EU would stabilize Europe’s eastern border and strengthen security against Russia.
But that ignores the lessons of history.
Those same arguments were used in Ukraine in 2014. Making the Moldovan election a zero sum tussle between Europe and Russia — rather than a vote about what ordinary Moldovans want to see happen domestically — risks making Moldova a new, much smaller, more economically vulnerable, version of Ukraine.
And the critical point is that Sandu has yet to make the economic case that EU membership, rather than Moldova maintaining balanced relations with all countries, including Russia, will provide the boost that the country needs. A pro-European report from 2014 shows that significant economic benefits accrue to countries in anticipation of possible membership, but that EU membership won’t necessarily benefit every new member, mentioning Greece.
The reality is that annual economic growth in Moldova since the signing of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the EU in 2014 has been significantly lower, on average, than in the first 10 years of the Millennium. That anticipation effect has not yet been seen in Moldova.
A key reason is that Moldova’s trade with Russia has fallen sharply since the DCFTA was signed. Sandu talks about 65% of Moldovan exports going to Europe as a triumph. In fact, Moldova imports twice as much from Europe, stoking a stubborn current account deficit. To some extent, that has been offset by inflows of foreign investment into Moldova. But it is nevertheless clear that strengthened relations with Europe haven’t been enough to make up for the cutting of trading relations with a country — Russia — that had previously been a key trading partner with Moldova.
The other key reason is demographic. Moldova has the fastest shrinking population in the world. Over a quarter of Moldova’s population have taken advantage of EU citizenship, by virtue of their entitlement to Romanian passports. That has led to an emptying of talent from Moldova as young, talented workers seek better pay elsewhere, mostly in Europe, but also in Russia. The economy would need to be growing at a brisker rate than it is to entice the most talented Moldovans back to their country. But, making Moldova the next frontier state for the West’s battle with Russia will place a heavy drag on encouraging diaspora Moldovans to return.
Moldova is a country that I am deeply fond of and have visited many times. As it happens, I have always considered that it is a country that would benefit from closer economic ties with Europe. I also believe that a politically stable and economically prosperous future for Moldova rests on that beautiful country maintaining close relations with Europe and with Russia. Maia Sandu may come to rue her failure to make this election about Moldova itself.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: Visitor passes the Raytheon Technologies Corporation (RTX) logo at the 54th International Paris Air Show at Le Bourget Airport near Paris, France, June 22, 2023. (REUTERS/Benoit Tessier/File Photo)
RTX (ex-Raytheon) busted for ‘extraordinary’ corruption
October 20, 2024
Indictments of arms contractors for corruption and malfeasance are not uncommon, but recently revealed cases of illegal conduct by RTX (formerly Raytheon) are extraordinary even by the relatively lax standards of the defense industry.
The company has agreed to pay nearly $1 billion in fines, which is one of the highest figures ever for corruption in the arms sector. To incur these fines, RTX participated in price gouging on Pentagon contracts, bribing officials in Qatar, and sharing sensitive information with China.
Engaging in illegal conduct on this scale suggests that, far from being an aberration, this behavior may be business as usual for the company. Given the scale of RTX’s malfeasance, the Justice Department should take a close look at the practices of other arms contractors to determine whether these infractions are industry standard.
The company’s approach is reminiscent of the way arms companies did business in the 1960s, when, for example, massive cost overruns on Lockheed Martin’s C-5 transport plane drew fire from internal critics like Ernest Fitzgerald and congressional gadflies, like the-Democratic Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin.
Resorting to bribery has been less prevalent since Sen. Proxmire pushed through the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, which was a response to a massive scandal involving the bribery of officials in Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Indonesia, and Saudi Arabia. The exposure brought about by the scandal – which covered events going back to the 1950s that were not known to the general public until a set of 1975 Senate hearings on the activities of multinational corporations showed the world how bribery was used to sway the decisions of foreign policy makers. This resulted in major consequences, including the conviction of former Japanese Premier Kakuei Tanaka, along with 10 other business people and government officials.
These days, with the exception of egregious cases like the recent conviction of Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) for taking bribes from the Egyptian government, most arms companies are more subtle in their efforts to influence foreign government officials, as far as can be determined. Bribery as blatant as passing along bags of cash, as happened in a number of cases in the 1960s and 1970s, is no longer prevalent. Now bribes are hidden amongst business deals. For example, a precondition of most major U.S. arms sales is the creation of an “offset” or kickback agreement. Basically, if a country spends billions of dollars on a U.S.-supplied weapon system, the company making the sale is expected to give something back to the purchasing country.
These offsets can include things like letting the host country build components of the system they are buying, to subsidizing military-related activities like the UAE’s cybersecurity industry, or even investing in unrelated items like hotels and entertainment venues. These deals are complex, and the U.S. government generally gives the companies involved free range to make whatever deals they need to make to secure an arms sale.
This regularity allows for a perfect avenue for currying favor with the potential recipient country. For example, it’s easy enough to throw part of an offset agreement to a relative of a member of the ruling elite with little chance of being detected or held accountable.
The story of RTX is about more than just money. For example, its weapons have been used to kill civilians in Yemen, Gaza, and other war zones. In addition to not showing remorse or regret for its part in these atrocities, RTX is also lobbying to reduce government vetting of weapons exports, a move that could make it easier to arm reckless and repressive regimes.
In the case of the Saudi war on Yemen, RTX lobbied aggressively to block any effort to cut off weapons supplies to the Saudi regime through visits to Congress and coordination with top Trump administration economic officials like Peter Navarro.
And it could get worse. As the Pentagon budget soars towards $1 trillion a year, and the wars in Ukraine and Gaza put a premium on pushing weapons out the door more quickly, opportunities for corrupt behavior will multiply. One potential way to head off a new wave of corruption in the weapons industry would be to adopt the kinds of reforms championed by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). She has endorsed policy changes which could prevent price gouging and work to reduce the power and influence of ex-military and congressional officials who work as board members or lobbyists for weapons contractors after leaving government.
Better regulations and more vigorous prosecution of bribery and price gouging could well reduce corruption in the arms industry. But the ultimate solution would be to scale back America’s “cover the globe” military strategy and resist the tendency to arm allies regardless of their behavior. We see this happening now with the Biden administration’s continuation of arms sales and military aid to Israel, even though the International Court of Justice has said that it is “plausible” that Israel is engaged in a campaign of genocide in Gaza. When waging war and selling weapons are viewed as the royal road to global security, companies can take advantage of urgency, as Sen. Harry Truman found out when he chaired a Senate committee on war profiteering in World War II, and as did John Sopko when he served as the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction.
Netanyahu’s war is bad for almost everyone — not just the direct victims of the violence. Future U.S. administrations will find that current, uncritical support for Israel will make their jobs extremely difficult when they attempt to present the idea that the United States is a reliable partner that believes in promoting adherence to the “rules-based international order.” Furthermore, the people of Israel will find that their nation is treated as a pariah by many countries, including ones which had recently been open to developing a positive relationship with Jerusalem. As for the goal of eliminating Hamas altogether, it is a long shot. And even if the organization is completely eradicated, a new organization could pop up composed of people who lost family members and had their lives turned upside down by Israel’s brutal campaign in Gaza.
The war is not bad for companies like RTX. Although they did not lobby for increased aid to Israel, they benefit from the chaos that comes from war and conflict, even if they aren’t the primary cause of this frightening condition. But if we could build a world where cooperation and diplomacy supplant the use of force as the first resort in U.S. foreign policy, companies like RTX could see their revenues reduced dramatically. Demilitarizing our society will require us to reduce the power and economic clout of companies like RTX, but it will also have to involve a change in the current U.S. foreign policy, which elevates force and the provision of arms above common-sense diplomacy.
keep readingShow less
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.