The Evolving Attitude Towards War in Western Politics
“Give war a chance,” the unconventional strategist Edward Luttwak urged during the waning days of the Clinton administration. He believed that the pursuit of lasting peace was frequently undermined by well-meaning liberal advocates who hesitated to allow conflicts to “burn themselves out.” Fast forward nearly 25 years, and the world finds itself in a tumultuous landscape where war is being afforded numerous opportunities—from Israel’s aggressive actions in Gaza and Lebanon to the ongoing humanitarian catastrophe in Sudan, culminating in the protracted conflict in Ukraine.
In the midst of this turmoil, Western leaders have, in recent years, presented a united front, predominantly supporting Ukraine and Israel while largely neglecting the plight of Sudan. However, a significant shift has emerged within this informal coalition: a growing acceptance of warfare and its associated costs among the Western liberal-left establishment, a group once ridiculed by Luttwak.
When did the left become so at ease with the prospect of war? This question demands urgent attention—especially considering that Donald Trump capitalized on widespread fears of global conflict during his election campaign, even pledging to “stop wars” in his victory speech. The conventional narrative attributes this shift to the perceived threats posed by terrorists and authoritarian regimes to the global order, prompting Western leaders, regardless of their political affiliations, to take decisive action. Undoubtedly, the world appears more perilous than it has in decades. Yet, this explanation does not adequately account for the Biden administration’s unwavering commitment to arming Ukraine and Israel while simultaneously allowing allies in the Persian Gulf to engage in a catastrophic proxy war in Sudan. Furthermore, it fails to elucidate the newfound enthusiasm among liberal commentators, Nordic social democrats, and German greens for the remilitarization of Europe, who now watch with increasing concern from across the Atlantic.
Two alternative explanations merit consideration. Firstly, history illustrates that governments and bureaucracies often develop an addiction to a war footing, with failures leading to deeper entanglements. Consider the U.S. war on terror or the Vietnam conflict; both examples highlight how war can create a vicious cycle of escalation where substantial financial and political rewards accumulate for governments and the military-industrial complex, while the burdens are predominantly shouldered by weaker nations—until those costs ultimately return home in various forms.
We have termed this bipartisan phenomenon “wreckonomics,” observing its pronounced presence in conflicts where Western politicians can largely externalize the costs—ranging from anti-terrorism efforts and drug wars to quasi-colonial interventions during the Cold War. Historically, the political right has taken the lead in these endeavors, exemplified by Richard Nixon’s war on drugs and George W. Bush’s war on terror. The latter proved to be a boon for the military-industrial complex, resulting in relatively few American casualties while contributing to instability, terrorism, and mass displacement in affected regions. Today, the conflict in Ukraine is once again presenting an opportunity for a significant surge in military spending, this time without the immediate risk of Western combat fatalities.
While there exists a crucial distinction between the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, on one hand, and the defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression on the other, the patterns of warfare often incentivize further escalation, especially when the distribution of costs and benefits is uneven. Notably, Western leaders—such as Britain’s Keir Starmer, France’s Emmanuel Macron, and NATO’s former head Jens Stoltenberg—have posited that the war in Ukraine is winnable, without providing a clear strategy beyond the continuous provision of arms. This has escalated to the point where long-range Storm Shadow missiles may potentially be utilized to strike targets within Russia itself.
