War, Security, and the Hidden Benefits of Engagement
Is America’s global role worth the cost? Dr. Peter Feaver, a leading expert in civil-military relations, explains war, security, and the unseen benefits of U.S. foreign policy.
“The United States has enjoyed the benefits of it, yes, but we've had to pay a price for it as well. And that brings us, of course, to the present day debate: should we still be bearing those costs? Still shouldering those burdens?
— Dr. Peter Feaver
What if the greatest success of American foreign policy is something you barely notice?
No major wars between great powers. No large-scale attacks on U.S. soil for decades. A global system that — while some would argue is imperfect — has avoided the kind of catastrophic conflict that defined the first half of the 20th century.
And yet, many Americans are asking a different question: Was it worth it?
Dr. Peter Feaver, a leading expert in civil-military relations, offers a perspective shaped by history, policy, and lived experience. From the collapse of industrial America to the wars of the 21st century, the conversation confronts a difficult tension:
How do you measure the value of something that works precisely because you don’t see it?
Distrust Isn’t New…It’s American
Skepticism about foreign entanglements isn’t a modern phenomenon. It’s actually quite foundational.
“This distrust of the foreign policy elite is as American as the founding fathers,” Dr. Feaver explains.
“The framers of the Constitution were wrestling with this question of how to protect the republic and could we even afford to have a standing army or would it become itself a source of adventurism and get us trapped in different wars we had no business doing?”
From the earliest days of the republic, Americans have worried that global involvement could drag the country into unnecessary wars. The tension between engagement and restraint has never fully disappeared.
And historically, it has often taken a crisis to resolve it.
“The galvanizing moment was Pearl Harbor, followed by Adolf Hitler's Declaration of war, when Americans realized problems over there don't stay over there.”
That realization reshaped U.S. foreign policy for generations.
But memory fades, and with it, the rationale behind that shift.
What Most People Miss About Success
One of the central challenges of foreign policy is perception.
When it fails, the consequences are obvious. When it works, they’re invisible.
Dr. Feaver captures this dynamic with a simple analogy:
“You don't think about oxygen when you have it, but as soon as you don't have oxygen, it's the only thing you can think about.”
Security works the same way.
For decades, the United States has helped maintain a global system that prevents large-scale conflict. And while that system isn’t perfect, when compared to the alternatives, it’s remarkably effective.
“The United States has been the dominant power, since World War II, that has backed up security globally. And if the United States has enjoyed the benefits of it, yes, we've had to pay a price for it as well,” Dr. Feaver shares.
“But we have disproportionately enjoyed the benefits from it. And that brings us, of course, to the present day debate — should we still be bearing those costs? Still shouldering those burdens?”
And while dominance comes with costs, it also delivers benefits — many of which are easy to overlook.
The Cost of War, and What It Buys
Critics of U.S. foreign policy often point to the human and financial toll of recent wars.
Undebatable, those costs are real.
“The personal costs of individual soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, guardians…the personal costs for the individual and for their family of loved ones is horrific. And no one should diminish that,” he says. “That is what makes war horrible.”
But evaluating those wars requires a broader lens.
Because the question isn’t just what they cost but also what they prevented?
D. Feaver points to a key outcome of post-9/11 policy as an example.
“If on September 12th, 2001, I told you we would go 25 years without a mass casualty attack on the US homeland from militant Islamist terrorist networks, you would have said that would be a tremendous achievement.”
And it was achieved, costs included.
“It was costly to achieve because as we learned on September 11th, they were coming for us and they had a plan to keep coming for us until they had changed America's status in the world.”
That doesn’t justify every decision made along the way. But it complicates the narrative that these efforts produced nothing of value.
The Bigger Pattern: War Is Changing
Another reality often missed in public debate is how the nature of war has evolved. While recent conflicts have been costly, they are fundamentally different from the wars that came before.
“The casualties in the global war on terror were too high, but they were in order of magnitude,” Dr. Feaver explains. “The Korean War, Vietnam War, were very costly but much less costly than the great wars of World War I, World War II — and significantly less costly than when we were worried about facing a Soviet threat.”
He’s quick to point out that while the “costs” have been going down, “these have been limited wars as opposed to the great power wars.”
That distinction matters.
Because the real goal of post-World War II strategy wasn’t to eliminate conflict entirely. It was to prevent catastrophic conflict. And so far, it has succeeded.
But military power alone doesn’t fully explain that success.
Allies, Values, and the Real Sources of Strength
According to Dr. Feaver, U.S. strength ultimately relies on three pillars:
Our economic power
The appeal of American values
The ability to build alliances
That third pillar may be the most underestimated.
“What makes us strong is not just our own strength, but the fact it's us plus rich and powerful allies who historically have wanted to partner with us,” Dr. Feaver argues.
“That is a key part of what's made the post World War II strategic bargain — a bargain worth paying.”
This is where the conversation shifts from cost to leverage. Because alliances don’t just distribute burdens, they also multiply influence. And undermining them carries risks that aren’t always immediately visible.
It has been said many times that America has paid its fair share and it’s time for our allies to contribute more.
“Every American president has said Europeans need to spend more on defense. Trump 1.0 made some progress on that. Biden made even more progress on it than Trump 1.0. And now we're seeing still more progress,” Dr. Feaver highlights.
“NATO today is functioning in a more fair burden sharing way than it has for a long time. And so it would be a great tragic irony if in this moment we took other steps that broke that alliance just as it was doing what it should be doing.”
The Danger of Getting It Wrong
Of course today’s global environment is becoming more volatile.
Admittedly, Dr. Feaver explains, “the security situation today is much more dangerous than it was even in 2016.”
With rising tensions involving China and Russia, the margin for error is shrinking.
And history offers a clear warning about what happens when threats are ignored.
“It's way, way more costly to avoid the problem and have to confront it after it is metastasized than it is to be more proactive and deal with the problems when they're easier to handle.”
This is the core argument for engagement. No, it’s not easy or cheap, but the alternative is worse.
A Final Thought
If this season is asking whether America’s global role is worth the “blood and treasure,” this episode offers a different way to think about it. Not as a question of cost alone, but as a question of comparison.
Sure, it’s costly. But compared to what?
The true measure of foreign policy isn’t whether it avoids all conflict — but whether, in the end, it prevents far worse ones.
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