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
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
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.