Citizens of the United States are proud of their history and place in the world, and with good reason. From small colonial outposts at Jamestown and Plymouth in the early 17th century, the nation grew and developed, first gaining independence from the British Empire, later surviving a bloody Civil War, and emerging from two World Wars as a superpower. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US became the world’s dominant power, with influence unprecedented in world history. All of this took place in less than 400 years.
The US achieved its position as today’s global power the old-fashioned way – like previous empires, the US achieved population and economic growth that fueled military expansion and conquest. Today the US dominates the world via its economic and cultural influence, backed by military strength. Make no mistake, the United States became a “superpower” through war, and has retained that status because of its military power.
But the United States has always understood itself as more than a military empire. Like the two-faced Greek god Janus who looks in separate directions, citizens of the United States have historically tried to balance the demands of defense and security with a desire for peace. The bald eagle on the nation’s Great Seal symbolizes this ongoing tension: the eagle clutches in one talon an olive branch with 13 leaves and olives, while in the other it holds 13 arrows. The olive branch symbolizes peace; the arrows signal that the US is also prepared for war. The eagle faces its right, toward the olive branch and away from the arrows, indicating a preference for peace.
Recent history seems to demonstrate that the US preference for peace has been replaced by a worldview more inclined to war – at least as evidenced by the US Federal Budget, the large number of US military bases around the world, and the frequent use of this military by US leaders. Total military spending by the US dwarfs that of every other country and is, in fact, larger than the combined military spending of all other nations on this planet. With at least 128 overseas bases in over 60 nations, another 20 nations where active-duty U.S. personnel are assigned worldwide, and a willingness and, I might add, an eagerness to use this military prowess, the US is today’s global empire. Symbolically speaking, the eagle on the Great Seal has shifted its gaze from the olive branch to the arrows and, in fact, has all but dropped its olives.
This unbalanced preference for military spending and the default decision to use its military rather than diplomatic and developmental options is problematic. Policies that continue to favor the arrow while ignoring the olive branch will likely fail in the long term for two primary reasons: first, this level of military spending is economically and morally unsustainable; and second, today’s global issues will require far more than military capacity to solve. It says here that more global conflicts will be solved by soft power – diplomacy and development – than by military power. Soft power is real power; it includes conflict resolution and transformation, poverty mitigation, attention to environmental degradation, and drying up the economic inequalities where hatred is fed, and violence is born. Viewing the world and international conflict primarily through a militaristic lens is an archaic and counterproductive course that reveals a poverty of new ideas, especially given the complex and dynamic problems of today’s global village.
Dwight David Eisenhower, the 34th president of the United States, had previously served as Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in Europe and thus commanded the largest multinational military force ever during the Normandy Invasion (D-Day) in June 1944. But it was Eisenhower who made these bold statements approximately 75 years and 65 years ago, respectively:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. —Eisenhower, April 16, 1953
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. —Eisenhower, January 17, 1961
The cost of projecting military power and the ongoing expenses of maintaining a large standing army are enormous, as anyone who has ever considered this subject must acknowledge. Total US military spending is about double the official Department of Defense (DoD) budget because many national defense line items are not included in the DoD budget. The War in Iran, the Veterans Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the nuclear weapons program, the counterterrorism activities of the State Department, the National Intelligence Program, pensions of retired military and civilian employees, and a percentage of the US federal interest on the debt are all expenses not listed, but should be considered part of U.S. military spending. Total U.S. military spending surpassed $1 trillion in 2007, and it has continued to rise since, now approaching $1.7 trillion.
The cost to wage war is extraordinarily high. Expenses for any war carry on well beyond the time frame of the conflict itself, as medical bills, pensions, and other services continue throughout the lifetime of the soldiers – and beneficiaries (rightly so). Expenses for WWII servicemen and women peaked in 1991 – 46 years after the conflict ended. US financial obligations to its WWII veterans will continue until the last soldier, marine, sailor, or airman or woman dies, likely in the next decade or so (the last U.S. WW I soldier, Frank Buckles, died on February 27, 2011, at the age of 110. His death came 93 years after that war ended). The same rule of thumb applies to veterans of the other wars as well: US citizens will continue to pay for the healthcare and pensions of U.S. service members of the Wars in Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, the War in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Iran, well into the 22nd Century.
This is not new information: even Adam Smith recognized war's high cost. He wrote these words in his seminal work, The Wealth of Nations:
No foreign war of great expense or duration could conveniently be carried on by exporting the rude produce of the soil. The expense of sending such a quantity of it to a foreign country as might purchase the pay and provisions of an army would be too great. Few countries produce much more rude produce than what is sufficient for the subsistence of their own inhabitants. To send abroad any great quantity of it, therefore, would be to send abroad a part of the people's necessary subsistence.
Further attacks against the US and its allies are likely. Despite the best efforts of the CIA, FBI, DHS (Department of Homeland Security) and collaboration with international agencies dedicated to the protection of its citizens, the quest to eliminate the possibility of any attacks is impossible in a society as large and free as the United States. In fact, the level of anger against the US in the Arab and Muslim worlds is higher than it was before the al Qaeda attacks of 9/11 as a result of the military invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. In a simple “if – then construct, if the level of anger and hatred against the US in the Middle East has increased, then it is likely there will be more attacks against the people of the US. The best way to reduce anger and hatred in the Middle East and around the world, and to mitigate future “evil deeds,” is to embrace the olive branch and turn from arrows, war, death, and destruction to peace and friendship.
The path the U.S. has taken to global dominance has not always been linear. Still, it has been consistent, from the first violent confrontations with Native Americans at Jamestown and Plymouth through westward expansion, manifest destiny, and foreign wars. Though the Louisiana Purchase was a negotiated and peaceful territorial acquisition from France, the Mexican Cession of what are today all or portions of the states of California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma was not. The U.S. had annexed Texas in 1845, and the Gadsden Purchase of 1853 added what is now southern Arizona and New Mexico to the U.S. Ulysses S. Grant declared that the Mexican-American War was “one of the most unjust ever waged by a stronger against a weaker nation. It was an instance of a republic following the bad example of European monarchies, in not considering justice in their desire to acquire additional territory.”
The Trump administration is determined to increase the chasm between the arrows and olive branch. For FY 2026, the U.S. is spending ~$50 billion on the State Department, foreign assistance, diplomacy, and related international programs, less than 4% of the $1.7 trillion spent on U.S. military spending.
Trump’s personal love of military imagery can be seen in his grand military parade in Washington, D.C., on June 14, 2025, his plans for building an Arch of Triumph between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial, and his posting of AI-generated images of himself as a five-star general in the midst of battles. These same three can also be seen as evidence of a narcissistic personality disorder.
If we look only at the DoD budget (ignoring, for now, the other military expenses listed above), President Trump requested a 13 percent increase to the DoD from FY 2025 to FY 2026 to ~$1 trillion, and a 66 percent increase of the FY 2026 budget to $1.5 trillion for FY 2027. At the same time, his administration is seeking significant cuts that fund “the olive branch.” Their proposed budget for the State Department/foreign aid in FY 2026 represents a 41 percent reduction in these categories, and they propose an 83 percent reduction relative to the FY2025 budget for FY2027. Should Congress accept these budgets, a new design for the U.S. Great Seal is in order.
The reality is that today we have the ingredients for a “perfect storm:” war waged by governments and quasi-governments, sanctioned by religious leaders, supported by the populations and fought with weapons of mass destruction provided by the US. We are testing
Einstein’s prophetic hypothesis: “I do not know how the Third World War will be fought, but I
can tell you what they will use in the Fourth – rocks!”
Alternatively, U.S. history has had plenty of doves who opposed the insatiable appetite for U.S. military spending. I list here not those doves, but three men more associated with arrows who spoke of peace:
- General William Tecumseh Sherman: "I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell.”
- Franklin Delano Roosevelt: “I have seen war. I have seen war on land and sea. I have seen blood running from the wounded. . . . I have seen the dead in the mud. I have seen cities destroyed. . . . I have seen children starving. I have seen the agony of mothers and wives. I hate war.” And, “We have learned that we cannot live alone, at peace; that our own well-being is dependent upon the well-being of other nations, far away. . . . We have learned the simple truth, as Emerson said, that ‘the only way to have a friend is to be one.’”
- Harry Truman: “Let us not become so preoccupied with weapons that we lose sight of the fact that war itself is the real villain.”
Somehow, we must encourage the eagle to return its gaze to its right and embrace the olive branch, peace, soft power, and the world’s diverse populations. Perhaps a policy window will emerge in which the US can lead the world towards a new reality and destiny: it is time for the US to lead humanity into a golden age of peace and justice. Only then can the US create a so-called Pax Americana, a peace built through cooperation, collaboration, and justice.
DISCLAIMER: This book will challenge you to question what motivates you as a Christian and should change your life. The Church faces many challenges and opportunities today. A simple question to keep in front of us is whether our primary motivation is to preserve a self-serving institution in the image of Constantine, or the selfless Savior, Jesus Christ. Identifying the difference between Nazarene Christianity and Imperial Christianity is a first step in helping men, women, churches, and denominations that want to follow Jesus back to him and away from being disciples of Constantine.
The book comes with a full study guide to complement each chapter. The book is available through Market Square Books, Cokesbury, and Amazon.
The Rev. Wayne Lavender, Ph.D., is a United Methodist pastor currently serving as the executive director of the Foundation 4 Orphans and a faculty member in the political science departments at Quinnipiac University and the University of Connecticut. A graduate of the doctoral program at George Mason’s School of Public Policy in 2010, he earned his BA from Drew University and an MA and M.Div. from the Pacific School of Religion. He is the author of ten books, including Pure Religion and Dante Redux. Wayne lives close to nature with his wife, Maureen, in Hamden, Connecticut.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
November 3 Webinar with Wayne Lavender
Join Wayne on Thursday, November 3 for his CEU 1-hour webinar at ClergyEducation.com titled, "How Constantine Created the Christian Right."