Soft Power, War, and the Real Cost of Disengagement
What happens when the U.S. pulls back from global engagement? Mietek Bodoszynski, a former diplomat, explains the real impact of soft power, conflict, and foreign policy decisions.
“I continue to believe — maybe naively — that one of the sources of US strength is our values…That's what we have as a comparative advantage against rivals like China who don't.” — Mietek Bodoszynski
What happens when a global superpower decides to step back?
Not in rhetoric, but in practice.
For decades, American foreign policy has operated on a dual track: hard power when necessary, soft power wherever possible. Military intervention could end wars, but institutions, media, and democratic systems were meant to prevent the next one.
But what if that second half disappears?
Mietek Boduszynski, a former U.S. diplomat and foreign policy expert, offers a firsthand look at what American engagement actually does on the ground. From the Balkans to Libya, and from war crimes accountability to the dismantling of USAID, the conversation raises a deeper question:
What do we lose when we stop showing up?
The Reality of Power: It Doesn’t Start Soft
There’s a tendency to romanticize diplomacy, to believe that dialogue, development, and shared values drive global stability.
But that’s not how it usually begins.
As Boduszynski explains, even one of the most cited examples of successful U.S. engagement started differently.
“The first NATO intervention was in 1995, in Bosnia, bombing Serb positions that created the conditions under which the US — at this unipolar moment — could lead a peace process known as the Dayton Accords,” he offers. “So it was hard power that led to lots of soft power after that.
Only then could institutions be built like the media, courts, and civil society. Soft power didn’t replace hard power.
It followed it. And in many ways, it sustained it.
What Soft Power Actually Looks Like
Soft power is often dismissed as abstract. It’s too intangible to measure, too idealistic to justify. But on the ground, it’s anything but abstract.
In post-war societies, it looks like something very specific.
“One of the key things to develop after the wars in the former Yugoslavia, in places like Bosnia or Macedonia, was a free independent media,” he says. “Investigative reporting, talk shows, news programs…”
These weren’t side projects. They were foundational.
“A key component of democracy,” Boduszynski argues, “was establishing investigative reporting and journalism programs that later were critical to uncovering horrible corruption.”
The impact wasn’t theoretical; it was structural.
“We can point to an enormous impact, a sort of history bending impact.”
In regions emerging from war and dictatorship, that kind of shift isn’t incremental. It’s transformational.
The Debate: Waste or Strategy?
Critics of programs like USAID often frame them as inefficient at best, or ideologically driven at worst.
And to some extent, even insiders acknowledge the imperfections:
“As any big bureaucratic organization, it's going to have efficiencies and inefficiencies, distortions and good points.”
But focusing only on inefficiencies risks missing the larger function. Because soft power isn’t just about aid, it’s about shaping environments.
“If you want American companies to set up manufacturing overseas, to invest overseas or to sell their products overseas, at the very least, you want the rule of law,” Boduszynski explains, arguing the benefits extend beyond altruism.
“You want to make sure that you can deal with those countries in a way that's fair.”
And that has direct implications for the United States.
This is where the conversation shifts from charity to strategy.
When Engagement Disappears
So what happens when those efforts are scaled back or eliminated entirely?
According to Boduszynski, the consequences aren’t immediate, but they are real.
“I think the wholesale dismantling of the organization,” he argues, “didn't serve American soft power or taxpayers or our interests well.”
The loss isn’t just institutional, it’s strategic.
Without sustained engagement, the systems that prevent instability begin to weaken.
And in regions already vulnerable to conflict, that creates openings for corruption, for authoritarian influence, for instability.
Libya: A Case Study in Fragility
If the Balkans show what engagement can build, Libya shows how quickly things can unravel.
Following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, the state itself collapsed.
“Gaddafi was the state,” he explains. And once he was gone, there was nothing. It was chaos. “Everything melted away.”
In that vacuum, even basic security disappeared.
The result wasn’t just instability; it was tragedy. For Boduszynski, who was directly connected to the events in Benghazi, the lesson isn’t just about intelligence failures or security gaps.
It’s about what happens when policy becomes reactive instead of strategic.
The Bigger Question: What Are We Optimizing For?
At its core, this conversation isn’t about one agency or one policy decision. It’s about priorities.
Are we optimizing for short-term efficiency, or long-term stability? Are we viewing foreign engagement as a cost, or as an investment?
Because the reality of global affairs is uncomfortable.
“It's a messy enterprise, and rarely can you find satisfying moral or ethical clarity.”
And yet, Boduszynski believes stepping back doesn’t simplify the world but rather it just changes our role in it.
For much of modern history, American influence hasn’t just been about strength; it’s been about identity.
“One of the sources of our strength is our values. That's what we have as a comparative advantage against rivals like China who don't have values, but even some partners like the Europeans don't always operate from a place of values.”
That doesn’t mean those values have always been applied consistently.
“We've been, some would say, ‘hypocritical,’ but at least we have it," he says. “It's been part of the conversation. Even in the first Trump administration it was part of the conversation.”
Our values have been present, part of the framework. But that may be what’s changing.
“I see that as a kind of abdication and I see it as unfortunate, but people are free to disagree,” he says. “Maybe the pendulum will swing back a little bit.”
Addressing the last national security strategy just released, however, Boduszynski isn't as convinced.
“It's probably the most values-devoid foreign policy document ever, at least in modern US foreign policy history.”
If that shift holds, the implications go beyond policy. They reshape how the United States is perceived, and what role it plays in the world.
A Final Thought
If the first question of this season is whether global engagement is worth the cost, this episode reframes it entirely. Because the real question may not be what engagement costs, but rather what disengagement creates.
You can follow Samuel Waitt for additional insights on world politics by subscribing to his Substack: samuelwaitt.substack.com and read the book: Waitt, What?: Reflections on Global Politics – available on Amazon.
Comments