History As It Happens

Episode: Peace Through Strength? War Is Our Gospel

Host: Martin Di Caro
Guest: Brandon Buck (Cato Institute Research Fellow)
Date: March 20, 2026

Overview

This episode delves into the history, evolution, and consequences of the phrase "Peace Through Strength"—a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy since World War II. Host Martin Di Caro and guest historian Brandon Buck explore how this slogan, often associated with conservative and Republican administrations, has functioned as a rhetorical tool shaping policy, public opinion, and even America's self-identity. The conversation further investigates the antiwar traditions on the American right, debates over interventionism, and the persistent legacy of "endless war" in the post-1945 era, including contemporary relevance under the Trump administration and current military actions in Iran.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Origins and Evolution of "Peace Through Strength"

• Initial Usage & Political Adoption (18:06–19:44)
  • While Truman and Eisenhower referenced the phrase, it firmly entered the conservative lexicon with Gerald Ford and was cemented by Ronald Reagan.
  • The slogan has functioned as a device for GOP presidents to appear restrained while upholding the liberal internationalist order.
  • Quote [02:24, Brandon Buck]:
    "Peace through strength is a slogan that conservative presidents use almost always from the GOP in the wake of liberal overstretch in foreign affairs. And then they use it as a way to feign restraint while in fact conserving all the core assumptions of liberal internationalism."
• Meaning for the Public (25:57–26:32)
  • Public support for "peace through strength" is high unless it entails direct or costly war, e.g., Korea.
  • Quote [26:01, Brandon Buck]:
    "Voters really believed in the peace through strength thing, so long as it didn't come at any actual cost."
• Malleability & Political Function (04:24, 25:26–25:52)
  • The phrase's vagueness allows it to justify various policies, from deterrence to intervention, and shift blame between parties.

2. Historical Context: From Early Cold War to Current Day

• The Liberal Internationalist Worldview (19:58–21:50)
  • A consensus emerged post-WWII that U.S. power underwrites global order—a notion justified with both realist and idealist rhetoric.
• The Conservative Turn & Revisionism (27:59–31:17)
  • Even arch-conservatives like Goldwater accepted many trappings of the postwar liberal order, albeit directing it towards unilateral American leadership.
  • Debates about NATO, intervention, and American military posture reflect this tension.
  • Retconning Truman as "conservative" due to his anti-communism, despite the diverse views within the GOP at the time.
• 1990s and Post-Cold War (31:17–34:02)
  • After the Cold War, "peace through strength" was used to criticize humanitarian interventions and nation-building by Democrats.
  • Conservatives focused on re-tooling the military for great power competition, especially with China, rather than global police interventions.

3. The Antiwar Conservative Tradition

• Roots and Evolution (37:09–41:52)
  • Tracing back to Lodge's opposition to the League of Nations, conservatives historically favored non-intervention and opposed entangling alliances to preserve American freedom of action.
  • The line between progressive and conservative antiwar stances blurred before WWII, with labor unions and even the American Legion initially skeptical of intervention.
• Transformation with the New Deal and WWII
  • Political realignments during FDR's time caused many previous anti-intervention constituencies to shift, leaving antiwar sentiment as primarily a conservative, Midwestern phenomenon.

4. Debates Around WWII, NATO, and "Lessons"

• Revisionist Arguments (49:38–53:54)
  • Some on the right argue U.S. entry into WWI (or WWII) created more problems than it solved—a view with roots in non-interventionist, even civic nationalist, American tradition.
  • Host and guest discuss the limits of historical hindsight and the dangers of triumphalist interpretations of WWII.
  • On NATO, Buck takes a Taftian skeptical view, suggesting that permanent U.S. garrisons in Europe were likely a long-term mistake.

5. The Presidency, Iran, and the Ease of War

• Imperial Presidency & Recent Conflicts (55:45–58:16)
  • Presidential unilateralism in starting wars has increased, with both Obama and Trump relying on airpower and minimal boots on the ground for regime change—especially in places like Libya, Syria, and now Iran.
  • Quote [56:19, Brandon Buck]:
    "The imperial presidency is just so hard to deconstruct because for one, I don't know if it's just partisan brain rot, but it's like everyone's fine with their president launching a war without Congress."
  • Skepticism that "limited" uses of force will achieve maximalist goals.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• The Rhetorical "Bait and Switch"
  [03:37, Martin Di Caro recapping Buck and Elkins]:

  "It has, however, consistently served as a rhetorical bait and switch, entrenching the very liberal world order that conservative hawks claim to oppose."

• On Reagan's Dovish Streak
  [25:26, Brandon Buck]:

  "Especially in his second term, he wanted to wind down the Cold War. He had a far more dovish streak in him than a lot of his modern supposed inheritors like to recall."

• Ordinary Americans’ Reluctance for War
  [46:34, Brandon Buck]:

  "A lot of people were just—the reason why they didn't want America to go to war was pretty simple. They didn't want their children to die."

• On Lessons from WWII
  [54:02, Brandon Buck]:

  "What are the lessons that we learned from it? ... The lessons to learn from it is that of tragedy, that war is terrible, it should not be taken lightly."

• Contemporary Application
  [56:52, Martin Di Caro]:

  "It's just become way, way too easy to start a war for an American president and then put on the drapery: We're doing this to liberate the Iranian people. We can't break that pattern."

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Segment Description | |:----------:|-----------------------------------------------------| | 01:19–01:53| Historical context for "peace through strength" | | 02:24 | Buck outlines the meaning/function of the slogan | | 10:42–14:43| Buck’s personal military evolution (Afghanistan) | | 18:06–19:44| Origins and adoption of the slogan | | 25:26–26:32| How Reagan used and redefined the slogan | | 27:39–28:39| Bipartisan adoption and mythmaking | | 31:17–34:02| The 1990s and the post-Cold War world | | 37:09–41:52| Conservative antiwar tradition | | 49:38–53:54| Revisionism and arguments about WWII, NATO, etc. | | 55:45–58:16| The imperial presidency and current actions in Iran |

Flow and Tone

The episode weaves together historical analysis, personal experience, and sharp critique in a manner that is both accessible and deeply knowledgeable. Both host and guest share moments of personal reckoning (e.g., Di Caro’s admission of shifting views on Iraq, Buck’s evolving doubts during Afghanistan), lending authenticity and gravity to the discussion. The tone is reflective, critical, and occasionally wry—eschewing simplistic assessments in favor of wrestling with complexity and irony.

Conclusion

"Peace Through Strength" has mutated over decades from a deterrence-based principle to a blanket justification for intervention—a balm for public opinion, a stick against political opponents, and a crucial symbol of the American postwar order. Yet as the conversation underscores, its malleability comes at the cost of clarity and genuine debate about U.S. interests, methods, and the human costs of war.

To learn more, read Brandon Buck’s essay “When Peace Through Strength Means War is Peace” (link in show notes).