Peace Mercenaries

From reactive warfare to proactive peacebuilding for profit.

In “Bargain Basement Hegemony,” I promised to set out an incentives-based alternative to expansionist U.S. foreign policy. Instead of unauthorized wars or continuous meddling and destabilization, I argue tentatively for aligning incentives around making sustainable peace wherever possible. While this would only be a small step toward a fantasy world free of conflict, it could be a step in the right direction.

What if the US government took a different approach to international relations? Where today’s approach is like an arsonist who puts out the fires he routinely causes—with sanctions after tensions escalate, proxy wars, or costly military mobilization—tomorrow’s approach could be more preventive.

Such foreign policy is similar to a corporation that pays an army of lawyers to defend the company in court. Over time, the executives wake up to the reality that this reactive model stresses the firm and is devastating to its bottom line. It certainly does little to address root causes that threaten the company—or, in the analogous case, the country.

What if the government would act more like a company that invests in prevention and compliance?

Inspired by a more strategic, anticipatory approach—let’s say the government pivots to a peacebuilding model, one we’ll tongue-in-cheekily refer to as Mercenaries for Peace. Instead of rewarding its military and diplomatic corps with lavish budgets, which go to bureaucracy building and no-bid contracts, it restructures incentives to prevent conflicts before they ignite.

Military strategists, diplomats, and even intelligence agencies would be compensated more for peace or, at least, reductions in global tensions—fewer border skirmishes, de-escalated trade disputes, or successful mediation in volatile regions. The analogy goes: just as the company would pay lawyers more to anticipate and defuse legal risks, the government would pay conflict managers more to anticipate and neutralize frictions.

Restructuring Incentives

To make this work, the government must design an incentive framework that shifts the focus from reaction to prevention.

Here’s how it could look.

Establish Priorities

You win some, lose some—but you can’t win ‘em all. The foreign policy heads should focus time and resources on real priorities.

1. Determine the world’s Top 10 Hot Spots on which to focus energy and resources.

2. Oblige your allies to take on more regional responsibilities that are of higher priority to them.

3. Be prepared to reshuffle these top priorities as circumstances change, but don’t stop emphasizing priority.

Establishing priorities helps to develop a baseline of restructuring incentives.

Reward Prevention Over Reaction

Diplomats and Negotiators. Authorities could tie modest bonuses to metrics like the number of successful trade agreements, cultural exchanges, or de-escalation talks. For example, a diplomat negotiating a resource-sharing deal between two rival nations might earn more than one who manages a war’s aftermath. Of course, it’s essential to establish good metrics to avoid agencies drawing perverse conclusions. We wouldn’t want, say, USAID to conclude that their efforts to fund transgender surgeries in Central America, Sesame Street in Iraq, or urinal art in Afghanistan are winning global peace.

Ultimately, the critical thing is that bonuses go up for peace and down for war.

Military Leadership. Connect funding and promotions to successful joint exercises with allies or training programs that stabilize fragile regions. Whether and to what extent these simple examples work would be a matter of continuous feedback. Paying for peace offers incentives for top brass to find what works.

Intelligence Agencies. Increase incentives for identifying and successfully mitigating conflict triggers—e.g., ethnic tensions, resource scarcity, or regional disinformation campaigns—instead of, say, enhanced interrogation, planning coups, or false flag operations.

Special Operations. Sometimes, armed conflict is necessary, though it should always be considered a last resort. Is it better for special operations teams to take out a key installation or enemy commander than to launch a full-scale invasion?

Collaboration Incentives

Peace Fund. The government could create a Peace Fund, rewarding nations that cooperate on shared challenges such as reducing corruption, conflict, unsustainable migration, or cybersecurity attacks. Countries that avoid unilateral aggression or resolve disputes through arbitration might receive additional trade benefits, technology transfers, or debt relief.

Preferred Partners. Think of it as a preferred partner program. Nations that opt into conflict-avoidance frameworks get perks, while those that escalate tensions face less engagement and higher costs (e.g., tariffs, sanctions). Some readers will justifiably think the US already uses sticks and carrots to prevent conflict. But it also uses sticks and carrots to stoke conflict. The main idea is that it should be more consistent and coherent in its foreign policy and the incentives that drive it.

Private-Sector Alignment

Defense contractors, often incentivized to produce weapons, might be paid more to develop peacekeeping technologies—such as advanced surveillance for civilian safety, AI systems to predict and prevent conflicts, or technologies that aid policing in lieu of military intervention.

Public Peace Dividend

Peace Dividend / Tax Rebate. We mustn’t forget about the people. A Peace Dividend or Tax Rebate for Peace offers an innovative approach to encouraging voters to prioritize diplomacy over conflict. Under this concept, for each year leaders avoid violent conflicts, taxpayers would receive a modest tax rebate. This would be large enough to feel but small enough to let go of in an emergency. The principle is simple yet powerful: by tying financial rewards to sustained peace, elected officials face pressure to exhaust peaceful means before resorting to war.

A Practical Example

Picture a hotspot like the South China Sea. Instead of ramping up naval patrols after every flare-up, a government incentivizes its admirals to broker resource-sharing pacts between rival claimants. Diplomats are rewarded for creating a regional forum that diffuses tensions over fishing rights or oil exploration zones. Funds might come from reallocating part of the naval budget and a small tax on shipping through the region. Over time, fewer such incidents mean less need for military escalation. The system helps pay for itself.

How to Finance the Restructuring

Redesigning incentives might not be so cheap upfront, but long-term savings from fewer wars could be substantial. Here are potential funding mechanisms:

Reallocate Defense Budgets

The US spends vast sums on reactive military capabilities—tanks, jets, missiles, and personnel. The defense budget in 2025 exceeds $850 billion. Some of this could be redirected to preventive infrastructure and modest bonuses for successful conflict forecasting, diplomacy, and stabilization programs. Shifting even 10 percent ($85 billion) to prevention could be enough to build a robust prevention capability.

Set up Global Conflict Insurance

A global insurance fund designed to create peace incentives could revolutionize how nations approach conflict. Imagine a system where countries pay annual premiums into a collective fund, with contributions scaled to their GDP or other metric. In return, the fund offers payouts or premium rebates to nations that avoid armed conflict with others over a set period, say five years.

Now, suppose a country engages in or initiates a violent conflict. In that case, it forfeits its claim to the payout and may face increased premiums, reflecting the heightened "risk" it poses to global stability. This setup mirrors traditional insurance models, rewarding low-risk behavior while penalizing aggression. Over time, the financial benefits of peace could outweigh the costs of war, nudging nations inexorably toward diplomacy and deterrence.

Peace Bonds

Governments could issue bonds to private investors, promising returns tied to measurable reductions in conflict (e.g., fewer refugee crises or terrorist incidents). This financial instrument would attract capital from those betting on stability, similar to how green bonds fund environmental projects.

Savings from Reduced Conflict

Wars are staggeringly expensive, including direct costs plus reconstruction, refugee support, and lost trade. The Iraq and Afghanistan wars, for example, cost the U.S. $4 trillion, not including ongoing veterans’ care. If prevention cuts a fraction of such expenses, the savings could self-fund Peace Mercenaries.

Challenges

Such proposals are not without risks. How do you measure peace and prevention? It’s trickier than counting time in courtrooms, and entrenched interests will resist any such reforms. Adversaries could exploit a peace-focused system by feigning cooperation and waiting until you’re distracted and comfortable in your peace to attack. Still, the corporate law analogy suggests aligning incentives with outcomes—fewer conflicts, lower costs—could shift behavior away from war profiteering.