American veterans know the cost of a military-first foreign policy

American veterans are increasingly voicing concerns about the long-term consequences of a foreign policy that prioritizes military action over diplomatic and economic strategies. According to statements made by a veteran with nearly three decades of service in the U.S. military, the disconnect between achieving tactical victories and securing lasting political outcomes has grown sharper in recent years. This individual emphasized that while military success is often celebrated, the broader strategic implications, particularly the risks of prolonged conflict, are frequently overlooked. The veteran highlighted how military voices are often invoked to justify further use of force, while calls for restraint are typically dismissed as coming from civilians. However, he noted that those who have experienced war firsthand are often the most cautious about engaging in it. He pointed to historical precedents, such as George Washington’s warning against excessive military buildup in his Farewell Address, and the teachings of Carl von Clausewitz, which stress that military actions must serve political goals rather than replace them. The United States has traditionally viewed the use of military force as a last resort, yet this principle appears to be eroding. Current military budgets stand at nearly $900 billion annually, with additional funds requested for 2026. In comparison, the budget allocated to international affairs, including diplomacy, development, and security assistance, is significantly lower, hovering around $50–60 billion. This creates a staggering disparity, with some estimates suggesting a ratio of up to 25-to-1 in favor of military spending. Rosa Brooks, a former U.S. Army colonel and professor at Georgetown University, has written extensively on this issue, noting that when the military becomes the primary tool of foreign policy, problems begin to appear as though they require a military response. In 2008, a group of military officials, including the late Defense Secretary Robert Gates, called for greater investment in civilian aspects of national security. Despite these appeals, the gap between military and non-military resources has continued to widen, with funding for diplomacy and development reaching historic lows. Military interventions are often launched with vague political objectives, and troop deployments are announced without clear criteria for their eventual withdrawal. This pattern has led to protracted engagements with unclear end goals, contributing to both human and financial costs. The veteran described personal experiences working within the intersection of military and civilian institutions, highlighting the challenges of aligning military efforts with political realities. The U.S. legal framework for foreign military engagement categorizes assistance into three main areas: training and equipping foreign forces, advising and assisting them, and directly deploying U.S. troops. Each category carries distinct legal and political responsibilities, along with varying levels of risk and cost. The veteran observed that once security cooperation agreements are established, they often persist beyond the political justifications that initially prompted them. A 2024 report by the State Department’s International Security Advisory Board underscored this concern, stating that while initiating such partnerships is relatively straightforward, ending them is far more complex. This dynamic raises questions about the sustainability of long-term military engagements and the potential for entanglements that outlive their intended purposes. Veterans and military analysts argue that the current approach risks undermining the very principles of national security that the military was founded to protect. They advocate for a more balanced strategy that integrates military capabilities with robust diplomatic and economic initiatives. As the debate continues, the call for a recalibration of U.S. foreign policy grows louder among those who have witnessed the consequences of overreliance on military solutions.