Why Has the US Been at War Almost My Entire Adult Life? (I am 43.)
War is for the state what gamma radiation was to Bruce Banner.
I recently asked a proactive question on Twitter: Why has the United States been at war almost my entire adult life?
It’s true. I’m 43 years old, and my country has been fighting and financing wars around the world virtually every year of my adult life.
My question seemed to strike a chord, receiving some 1,300 replies.
There were various answers, but I’ll share three that represent the most common responses.
“All government programs exist to perpetuate their own existence. Including war.” -Spike Cohen, the Libertarian Party's nominee for vice president of the United States in 2020
“So our politicians and weapons manufacturers get rich.” -MMA legend Jake Shields
“Because war is the life force of the empire.” - TheWingedHussar
All of these are good responses, but I want to explore a fourth response that a few others shared: “War is the health of the state.”
The quote comes from Randolph Bourne, a progressive writer and pacifist who wrote an unfinished work called "The State," which was discovered after his death. I share the quote because it seems to capture the spirit of all three of the responses above, and conveys a truth that people often fail to see: war is terrible for humans, but it’s glorious for the state.
In his 2002 book War and the Rise of the State, Bruce D. Porter explains how war turns the state into a “juggernaut of centralization.”
“…a government at war is a juggernaut of centralization determined to crush any internal opposition that impedes the mobilization of militarily vital resources. This centralizing tendency of war has made the rise of the state throughout much of history a disaster for human liberty and rights.”
In other words, war is for the state what gamma radiation was to Bruce Banner. For those who doubt Porter, I’ll point you to economic historian Robert Higgs, who has also written extensively on how crises—particularly war—have resulted in the most aggressive expansions of statism in American history.
Here’s a snapshot of World War I, per Higgs:
“With U.S. entry into the Great War, the federal government expanded enormously in size, scope, and power. It virtually nationalized the ocean shipping industry. It did nationalize the railroad, telephone, domestic telegraph, and international telegraphic cable industries. It became deeply engaged in manipulating labor-management relations, securities sales, agricultural production and marketing, the distribution of coal and oil, international commerce, and markets for raw materials and manufactured products. Its Liberty Bond drives dominated the financial capital markets. It turned the newly created Federal Reserve System into a powerful engine of monetary inflation to help satisfy the government’s voracious appetite for money and credit. In view of the more than 5,000 mobilization agencies of various sorts—boards, committees, corporations, administrations—contemporaries who described the 1918 government as “war socialism” were well justified.”
War essentially gives rulers the ability to slip on the One Ring, and once they try it on, they tend to like the fit. But these wars don’t just enhance the power of the rulers; they enhance the power of the state itself and the bureaucracy. Conflict becomes the lifeblood of the state, its raison d'etre.
Ask yourself this: is it a coincidence that in the immediate aftermath of the conclusion of the twenty-year Afghanistan War that the United States once again finds itself embroiled in a bitter struggle on the other side of the world?
I don’t believe it is. This is the new normal, and it all stems from the state, which has convinced Americans that the United States is a kind of “benevolent empire” and world peace-keeper. I hate to break it to you, but it’s not.
There is an irony in how few see it. Many who opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are cheering the government pouring billions of dollars into Ukraine, keeping that conflict alive in a bloody stalemate. Meanwhile, many who oppose sending dollars to Ukraine applauded sending soldiers into Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq to topple their governments.
The lesson is clear: when it comes to war, politics trumps peace. (This is not to say Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, or the Taliban are good guys. Each represented a different shade of evil.)
Americans might say they hate war, but deep down most really don’t. They see it as a legitimate (if messy) means of making the world a better place.
This is why I’m 43 years old and my country has been fighting and funding wars my entire life. I pray I cannot say the same thing when I’m 73.
Great post. Unfortunately, most Americans are steeped in interventionist ideology. That’s why year after year, it seems so many neighbors, family, and friends are beating the war drums.
Interventionism is the justification for nearly every war in American history. If a foreign country is acting unjustly towards its citizens or its neighbors, many Americans believe that the righteous U.S. ought to intervene.
I think if we want to convince people that interventionism is wrong, we need teach people that even in the supposedly just wars of the past, Americans suffered greatly due to its meddling in foreign affairs.
https://stephenjwood.substack.com/p/a-useless-sacrifice