Muslim World Report

Holding the U.S. Accountable for Its Militaristic Policies

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Jun 22, 2025 9:15 AM | 7 min read | 1424 words

TL;DR: The unchecked actions of the U.S. military abroad pose significant risks to global stability and democratic principles. This blog advocates for increased Congressional oversight and public accountability to reshape U.S. foreign policy. It emphasizes the need for grassroots movements and international coalitions to challenge U.S. militarism and promote a more ethical approach to global relations.

A Call for Accountability: The Dangers of U.S. Militarism and Its Global Ramifications

The recent escalation of U.S. military actions abroad, epitomized by the alarming deployment of a “full payload of bombs,” underscores a troubling trend in American foreign policy that demands urgent scrutiny. Such actions, frequently executed without explicit Congressional approval, raise profound concerns about the erosion of democratic principles and the prioritization of military expenditures—an estimated $3.5 million per bomb—over vital domestic needs like healthcare and education (Cowen, 2010; Howell, 2005).

This phenomenon is not merely a misstep; it is symptomatic of a broader imperialist agenda aimed at maintaining U.S. hegemony at the expense of global stability and human dignity (Johnson, 2000).

Economic Crises and Foreign Policy

The U.S. military’s engagement in conflicts contributes to severe economic crises in affected regions, particularly in the Middle East. The prevailing discourse surrounding these policies includes:

  • An “ethno-state” that disproportionately benefits from U.S. military support
  • Oppression of local populations
  • Pressure on neighboring nations to align with U.S. interests (Kohut & Toth, 1994)

This approach has far-reaching implications, as it breeds resentment, fosters terrorism, and perpetuates cycles of violence that undermine global peace. The political leadership in Washington—regardless of party affiliation, whether it be Barack Obama, Donald Trump, or Joe Biden—shares culpability in this cycle of militarism. This reflects a systemic issue rather than isolated incidents (Mayer & Khademian, 1996).

A Crisis of Trust

The mounting frustration among the American public regarding a lack of transparency and adherence to democratic principles in military decision-making is entirely justified. As the debate intensifies over:

  • Whether Congress has adequately authorized military action
  • The indifference shown toward constitutional principles governing war powers

This crisis threatens not only democratic governance but also the liberties Americans hold dear (Nepstad, 2011). As we navigate this perilous landscape, it is imperative to challenge the dominant narratives that justify imperialism and militarism, advocating for a paradigm shift toward peace and accountability.

The Necessity of Congressional Oversight

What If the U.S. Acknowledges the Need for Congressional Approval?

If the U.S. government were to engage in a genuine reassessment of its military actions by seeking Congressional approval for future interventions, it could significantly alter the dynamics of American foreign policy. This shift would signal a commitment to:

  • Upholding democratic principles
  • Recognizing the gravity of military engagement

Such an acknowledgment could restore public trust in elected representatives, as citizens would feel their voices are meaningful in decisions impacting global affairs (Johnson, 2000).

Requiring Congressional approval would also:

  • Encourage rigorous debate over military action
  • Compel lawmakers to consider the economic and social implications of military spending

With a projected annual defense budget surpassing $700 billion, increased scrutiny on military spending versus healthcare, education, and infrastructure would become essential (Hayes & Guardino, 2010).

Moreover, accountability in military decision-making would challenge the dominance of the military-industrial complex, which thrives on perpetual conflict. By dismantling the unchecked power of defense contractors and lobbyists, a more deliberative approach could pave the way for a foreign policy rooted in diplomacy and conflict resolution rather than militarism (Gairola & Ali, 2017).

While this hypothetical shift may not eliminate U.S. imperialistic tendencies overnight, it would mark a crucial step toward mitigating the harmful effects of military interventions and restoring faith in democratic accountability.

Expanding Domestic Resistance Against Militarism

An increase in grassroots resistance against U.S. militarism could profoundly reshape the political landscape. As citizens experience the repercussions of military actions—both abroad and at home—activism may intensify, leading to a more informed and engaged electorate.

The emergence of:

  • A people’s party or coalition advocating for anti-imperialist principles
  • Broader conversations about the U.S.’s role in the world

This resistance could facilitate discussions on human rights, social justice, and the ethical implications of military actions (Mohanty, 2013).

A strong anti-militarism movement could also foster alliances among marginalized communities—veterans, immigrants, and economically disadvantaged groups impacted by war. By building coalitions across movements, activists could leverage collective power to demand accountability from their representatives.

If driven by a commitment to intersectionality and solidarity, this wave of resistance could compel even centrist politicians to reconsider their stances on military spending and foreign interventions, ultimately yielding a more inclusive and equitable vision for American identity—one resonating with principles of justice and humanity.

The Potential for International Coalitions Against U.S. Intervention

What If International Coalitions Against U.S. Intervention Form?

Imagine a scenario where nations affected by U.S. military actions collaboratively form coalitions to counter American imperialism. Such alliances, comprising countries often subjected to U.S. interventions, could create a formidable front challenging unilateral military endeavors.

Historically, many affected states have united—through regional organizations like the African Union and the Arab League—to share resources, strategize, and advocate against external interventions (Popović, 2015).

A united front could strengthen international diplomatic efforts, providing a platform for member nations to voice grievances and push back against unjust military actions. By emphasizing:

  • Principles of sovereignty
  • The right to self-defense

These coalitions would challenge the legitimacy of U.S. military actions, reframing public discourse around national interests.

Moreover, the formation of international coalitions could galvanize public opinion within the U.S. As narratives of suffering and resilience emerge, the American public may reconsider their government’s role in perpetuating cycles of violence. This international resistance could pressure the U.S. to engage in more productive dialogue and negotiations, acknowledging that hegemonic power is unsustainable in a multipolar world.

If effectively organized, these coalitions could transform the framework of international relations, prioritizing cooperation over coercion and working toward a more peaceful and just global order.

Strategic Maneuvers for All Stakeholders Involved

Recognizing the multifaceted nature of the ongoing military crisis, it is crucial to explore potential strategic maneuvers that various stakeholders could adopt to foster a more peaceful global environment.

For the U.S. Government

  • Reevaluate military engagements: Implement checks and balances that require Congressional approval for military action. This demonstrates a commitment to democratic principles.
  • Enhance accountability: Enable a national conversation on the ethical implications of U.S. militarism, paving pathways for more constructive engagement with global partners (Meyer & Whittier, 1994).

For Grassroots Organizations

Grassroots movements must continue advocating for a transformative agenda that prioritizes peace and social justice. These groups can:

  • Leverage social media: Mobilize support and raise awareness regarding the consequences of U.S. military interventions.
  • Push for reforms: Demand that Congress affirms their responsibilities to the electorate and the international community.

For International Partners

Nations impacted by U.S. military actions should:

  • Strengthen diplomatic relations: Form robust coalitions focused on mutual support against imperialism.
  • Share resources: Collaborate to counteract U.S. dominance and promote peace-building initiatives.

The role of allies in the global community cannot be understated. Influential states should advocate for a shift in U.S. foreign policy that prioritizes peaceful conflict resolution over militaristic approaches. By engaging with the U.N. and other international organizations, these countries can work toward establishing norms that condemn aggressive military actions and promote dialogue focused on respect for national sovereignty.

In this complex landscape, each stakeholder—from the U.S. government to grassroots movements and international partners—plays a crucial role in shaping a future that prioritizes accountability, peace, and justice over militarism and aggression.

References

  • Chalmers Johnson (2000). Blowback: the costs and consequences of American empire. Choice Reviews Online.
  • Deborah Cowen (2010). A Geography of Logistics: Market Authority and the Security of Supply Chains. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 100(3), 726-735.
  • Danny Hayes, Matt Guardino (2010). Whose Views Made the News? Media Coverage and the March to War in Iraq. Political Communication, 27(2), 176-196.
  • William G. Howell (2005). Unilateral Powers: A Brief Overview. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 407-430.
  • Andrew Kohut, Robert C. Toth (1994). Arms and the People. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 67-81.
  • Joseph S. Nye (2008). Public Diplomacy and Soft Power. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 94-112.
  • Miloš Popović (2015). Fragile Proxies: Explaining Rebel Defection Against Their State Sponsors. Terrorism and Political Violence, 27(4), 732-752.
  • David N. Pellow (2016). TOWARD A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STUDIES. Du Bois Review Social Science Research on Race, 13(1), 1-23.
  • Douglas Kellner (2002). Theorizing Globalization. Sociological Theory, 20(3), 325-339.
  • Susanne Jonas, Catherine Tactaquin (2004). Latino Immigrant Rights in the Shadow of the National Security State: Responses to Domestic Preemptive Strikes. Social Justice: A Journal of Crime Conflict & World Order, 31(2), 23-39.
← Prev Next →