Peace is something often taken for granted by those who’ve never seen war. The luxuries and safety of the First World, even when we consider problems at home like inflation, unemployment and polarization, make us believe we can never be harmed by war.

This complacency generated a breed of politicians in the past decade who represent the greatest domestic threat to democracy in the United States: war hawks. Time and again, war hawks have failed to bring solutions to the world’s problems. They failed this country in Vietnam, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and they are failing today in Iran.

People in the United States fitting the “war hawk” definition include past politicians such as Dick Cheney and Lindsay Graham, who were staunch advocates of unilateral military action in the Middle East and over Ukraine. Among active politicians today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, House Democrat Jared Moskowitz and House Republican Tom Cotton are among the top examples of war hawks.

They are a phenomenon that exists across party lines, and their primary instinct is to abuse the American war machine and subdue other nations into compliance with the United States. Tangible examples include the passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 to establish a broad surveillance system, the enormous resources spent during the futile War on Terror and U.S. interference in the Middle East since the Arab Spring, whose effects shape global politics even today.

War hawks can speak with great conviction about the need for military action, as the United States has a geographic advantage that makes it relatively secure. To the north and the south of the United States are countries that cannot fight on the ground against the United States, while to the east and west are vast oceans that separate the United States from larger nations and other conflicts.

In this advantageous position, politicians can easily brag about the glory of war without realistically considering the consequences; even with modern technologies, fighting the United States on its soil would be a Herculean task. This advantage is precisely what breeds the sense of American exceptionalism and superiority, the cradle from which war hawks grow.

Today, the United States stands at a historical threshold. The old order of the United States as the sole dominant geopolitical force is nearing its end. The new world order that will inevitably replace it is still taking shape, but so far we are seeing the United States increasingly surrounded by nations with their own interests.

A reasonable reaction to this change would be to accept that the United States is no longer “the” superpower of the world and to seek diplomatic channels to deepen cooperation and resolve disputes. War hawks’ effect is antithetical to this thinking, as their memory is formed of instances when the United States was in practice unchallengeable on the ground.

The legacy they cherish is a relic of the last century, attached to memories of conclusive, if overwhelmingly one-sided, fights like Desert Storm in 1991 or Grenada in 1983. In both cases, the United States faced vastly weaker forces and defeated them in a matter of days. Against today’s military adversaries, the United States faces a much tougher situation and cannot afford unjustified confidence in a quick victory.

The war hawks of today are the reason for the continued escalation of violence and are putting the United States, along with the rest of the world, on the path to greater crises. The unchecked military support for Israel over the course of the past three years and the war against Iran this year are the direct result of politicians trying to force solutions through power globally.

Following these patterns, it is not unreasonable to assume that such politicians will risk large wars on a global scale for their own political benefit. To pursue hostility against China, to threaten Africa for their resources or to demand land from nations who are supposed to be the United States’ allies reduces the image of this country to nothing more than a politically unstable pariah state.

Unchecked and unconditional support for tough measures has repercussions both at home and abroad. Domestically, the cost of maintaining the war machine saps funds away from welfare, healthcare and science, making the nation subservient to a vast military-industrial complex and its related business interests.

Internationally, the United States risks provoking antagonism and destroying its global partnerships. Nations threatened by the United States will be more likely to pursue alternative trade and commerce partnerships. Such nations may then become more willing to pursue military cooperation that circumvents, or even openly opposes, the United States — isolating the country into an ever-tightening corner.

Should they push for action against China, North Korea or another scapegoat for their domestic failures, we the people will be forced to pay the price in blood once more.

Politicians who advocate for military action in the face of humanitarian crises and pursue aggressive nationalism in the name of patriotism represent the most blatant, cancerous rot in this country’s political system. We must reject their rhetoric.

Deniz Gulay is a senior double-majoring in history and Russian.

Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.