Restraint or engagement? The fight over America's role in endless wars
Dave Smith and Ian Carroll argue the terror wars and interventions like Yemen were costly mistakes driven by interests, while Mike Baker takes a pragmatist's view and Vivek Ramaswamy calls for a mission-first defense policy. Comparing them clarifies the real choices behind slogans like America First.
Restraint or engagement? The four guests here show that the real choice is not war or peace but which risks America is willing to own. All four use some version of America First, and they mean very different things by it. None is neutral, and some of their numbers are rough estimates.
Dave Smith, a libertarian comedian, makes the case for restraint from the record as he sees it: four to five million dead civilians, $8 trillion spent and a $36 trillion national debt after 25 years of war. He argues the wars followed plans that predated 9/11, and that anyone who says staying out would have been worse carries the burden of proof. His main case study is Yemen, where he says a secret drone campaign mostly killed people who were not the targets. He calls the result "insurgent math": each innocent death creates new recruits.
Ian Carroll, an independent researcher who calls himself not an expert, goes further back. He argues the CIA was built by corporate lawyers to use government power for business, with the overthrow of Guatemala's Jacobo Arbenz as his example. He says the war on terror created an elastic label that can turn anyone into an enemy. Several of his claims are allegations he admits are unproven, and he hedges heavily.
Mike Baker, a former CIA covert operations officer, is the counterweight. Nations act in their own interest, he says, and if America steps back someone worse steps in. He points to the Congo's cobalt and China's dominance of mineral refining. Yet he concedes the Iraq war was "justified based on a lie", and he notes a contradiction in a base that wants no money spent overseas but backs the idea of owning Gaza.
Vivek Ramaswamy takes a fourth path. He wants the foreign-policy nanny state shut down and the military judged by its mission: protect the homeland, win wars and deter them. Allies should pay, both because of the debt and because allies with skin in the game take fewer reckless risks. He would intervene less abroad and spend more on homeland defense, and he favors negotiated deals with clear red lines.
They agree that Iraq was a mistake and that money moves policy. The core disagreement is the vacuum. Baker says someone always fills the space America leaves. Smith calls that an unfalsifiable counterfactual and notes Russia and China face wealthy rivals of their own. Ramaswamy splits the difference. They also disagree on aid, on Trump's record, and on how certain to be.
What to do with it: when someone says America First, ask which version. Make both sides argue the counterfactual: who carries the burden of proof, and who fills the vacuum. Check whether an action protects the homeland, wins a war or deters one. Ask whether a strike creates more enemies than it removes, watch for elastic labels, follow the money, ask whether allies are paying, look for the deal before accepting that the options are bombing or retreat, and separate documented history from allegations.