The end of the Cold War brought no tickertape parades. But after the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, the U.S. and its European allies began taking a "peace dividend." Why spend money on soldiers and guns if no nation still represents a threat?
The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 were not quite a wakeup call. To defend against Al Qaeda and other "non-state actors" required a veritable army of uniformed agents at airports. But more submarines? What would be the point?
That same year, the U.S. brought the People's Republic of China into the World Trade Organization in the hope – and perhaps expectation – that if we helped the Chinese people rise from poverty, their rulers would become friendlier and more moderate.
The PRC did become much wealthier over the years that followed. Its rulers, however, became more hostile and ambitious.
Predictions that post-Soviet Russia would become freer and friendlier also failed to pan out.
In 2014, Vladimir Putin's troops invaded Ukraine, annexed the Crimean Peninsula, and began a low-intensity conflict in Ukraine's Donbas region.
Those acts of aggression brought no serious consequences from the U.S. or the "international community."
So, in February 2022, six months after President Biden's capitulation to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Mr. Putin launched a full-scale war of conquest against the Ukrainian people. That conflict continues.
Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic of Iran trained, funded, and instructed terrorists in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank, and Yemen. Four of these militias have been decimated by Israel during the war that was initiated when Hamas invaded Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Over recent days, the Israeli Air Force also has been striking Houthi targets in Yemen.
Though the regime in Tehran has been weakened, it continues to develop nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them anywhere on earth.
The conclusion we should draw from all this: What matters most in the world in this century is what mattered most in the world in previous centuries: military strength.
Now for the good news: Most Americans understand that the only winning strategy for the U.S. is "peace through strength" – the shorthand for what became known as the Reagan Doctrine and, it appears, the guiding principle for the incoming Trump administration.
We know this because the Ronald Reagan Institute recently released the results of its annual National Defense Survey of public opinion on America's role in the world. I have space here only to cherry-pick but do yourself a favor and read the entire survey.
To start: Most Americans are not isolationists. The survey asked if it's better for the U.S. "to be more engaged and take the lead" internationally or "less engaged and react." Fifty-seven percent of respondents said: "Take the lead."
Included in that figure were 59% of Trump voters and 61% of self-identified MAGA Trump voters.
I find this gratifying. Twenty-three years ago this month, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), the think tank where I hang my hat, opened its doors and began arguing that American leadership is imperative.
That's not because most Americans are hyper-nationalistic or egotistically need to be "No. 1!" It's because there's no adequate substitute for American leadership.
In today's world, Sunni jihadis, Shia jihadis, Chinese Communists, and Russian neo-imperialists seek to expand their empires, while their junior partner, Kim Jong Un, the nuclear-armed dynastic dictator of North Korea, hungrily eyes South Korea, a democracy that owes its existence to U.S. military power.
Americans get all that: A supermajority of those surveyed, 85%, said they are concerned about the increasing collaboration of the anti-American authoritarian states which we at FDD refer to as the Axis of Aggressors.
Most Americans, 79%, also understand that to maintain strength and leadership requires increased military spending. Included in that figure are nine out of ten MAGA Republicans. And 72% of those who voted for Kamala Harris agree as well.
Sixty-one percent of respondents believe the U.S. military should be large enough to win two simultaneous wars. We don't have that capability at present.
FDD has long argued in favor of forward deployments. Asked whether the U.S. should "maintain military bases around the world" or "reduce our military presence overseas," 62% of Americans, including 62% of Trump voters and 63% of MAGA Republicans, support keeping troops where they can collect intelligence on adversaries and respond swiftly when necessary.
Americans also grasp that it is in the U.S. national interest to support allies fighting common enemies.
Only a minority on the right share Tucker Carlson's sympathy for the dictator in Moscow and disdain for the elected president in Kyiv.
Seventy-two percent of Trump voters and 75% of MAGA Trump voters see Ukraine as an ally, while almost 8 out of 10 members of both groups view Russia as a foe.
Widening the aperture, the results are the same: Seventy-five percent of Americans view Ukraine as an ally, and 80% regard Russia under Mr. Putin as an enemy.
When it comes to Israel and the defensive war it's fighting against Tehran and its proxies, Republicans are more supportive than Democrats. My one-sentence explanation: The hard left sees Islamists as romantic revolutionaries and comrades-in-arms.
That minority notwithstanding, the poll makes clear that most Americans are clear-eyed about the need to rebuild American military power to address the threats and challenges ahead in this New Year and beyond.
Roger Zakheim, the Reagan Institute's Washington director, sums up the National Defense Survey by saying it shows "unwavering support for peace through strength...a military able to deter and defeat adversaries in multiple theaters."
This reminder: The enemies we deter by demonstrating great military capabilities and rock-solid determination are the enemies we won't need to spend blood and further treasure defeating.