Follow us on social

'Always at War' strives to answer the question: why?

'Always at War' strives to answer the question: why?

Quincy Institute makes its podcast debut with a show that probes the hidden matrix of interlocking interests that fuels American militarism

Reporting | QiOSK

The United States is a country at war. As I write, the U.S. is bombing Yemen, supplying weapons to Israel as it annihilates Gaza, conducting counter-terrorism operations in dozens of countries, and fighting a proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. Meanwhile, President Trump suggests he would go to war with Iran “very willingly” if nuclear diplomacy collapses.

As we stare down another potential forever war in the greater Middle East, a crucial question is raised: Why is the U.S. always at war?

The answer lies in a complex web of financial incentives and political calculations. This hidden matrix of interlocking interests that perpetuates America's war machine is precisely what the Quincy Institute's new YouTube show, "Always at War," investigates.

For Americans born after 1990, war isn't an anomaly — it's been the backdrop of their entire lives. And these conflicts haven’t just wrought destruction abroad — they’ve reshaped American society. In the wake of our endless wars, Americans’ civil liberties eroded, our police have militarized, and resources that could have been used to address domestic needs were diverted to the Pentagon, which looks set to spend nearly $1 trillion annually.

The money we allocate to defense is simply staggering: the U.S. government has spent $8 trillion on post-9/11conflicts as defense CEOs earn $25 million yearly and weapons manufacturers see 82% returns, amid recent conflicts.

But equally important are the political incentives that reward hawkishness and punish restraint.

When 80% of retired four-star generals join defense companies within five years and over 50 members of Congress own stocks in these same companies, we can plainly see the financial incentives that fuel American militarism. And there's also a powerful ecosystem of think tanks, media outlets, and political operatives that secure career advancements for those championing military solutions as they marginalize voices of those advocating for restraint.

“Always at War” aims to make this deliberately confusing system comprehensible.

The debut episodes feature the Quincy Institute’s William Hartung discussing America's nuclear weapons programs, especially its costly "Sentinel Program," and historian and Quincy Institute co-founder Andrew Bacevich, who draws parallels between the Vietnam War and today's ruinous interventions.

By revealing who benefits — both financially and politically — when America chooses war over peace, "Always at War" seeks to help viewers understand why the United States seems perpetually unable to stop participating in violent conflicts. Understanding these forces is the first step toward building a foreign policy based on restraint, diplomacy, and genuine national interest rather than profit and political advantage.

Watch now:


YouTube
Reporting | QiOSK
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.