An Interview with William Ruger
Contributed by Declan I.M. Deady
William Ruger serves as the President of the American Institute for Economic Research in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. He is a veteran of the Afghanistan War and remains an officer in the U.S. Navy (Reserve Component). Ruger was nominated by President Trump to serve as the United States Ambassador to the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan and was appointed by the president to the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board in 2020. Ruger earned his Ph.D. in Politics from Brandeis University and an A.B. from the College of William and Mary.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
SALIENT: We have just seen huge jumps in recruiting numbers. Do you think this is entirely due to more confidence because of the new regime, or do you think it can be attributed to other factors?
RUGER: Recruitment and retention issues are complicated. There are a lot of variables, but I wonder if some part of this is greater confidence is because the President is going to be focused on using America's military power when it's in support of the national interest as opposed to some kind of vague ideological project or in a way that doesn't seem to respect the lives and sacrifices of the American warfighter. I think parents rightfully worried under some previous administrations about whether their children's sacrifices would be honored.
If you think back to the Global War on Terror–these idealistic crusades in the Middle East are not something that I think a lot of Americans are jazzed about. I joined the military, but these conflicts became more wearying to the American public, and seemed to be failing, and seemed to have an expansion of war aims beyond what was necessary for our security. I think it was easy to say, “I'm not sure if it's worth paying that price.”
And then you add the fact that there was a strong perception that the military was becoming less focused on the warfighter ethos and more on wokeness. The perception probably also diminished enthusiasm among the type of people in the recruiting pool.
SALIENT: Do you think the policies and orders from Hegseth and Trump in regard to DEI/DIE will have the kind of wide-reaching effect that they suggest they will?
RUGER: One of the things that I think Secretary Hegseth should fortify is a proper sense of civil-military relations, consistent with our democracy. The only time anyone in the DOD has an electoral connection with the people is through the Presidential elections. If the military isn't elected, they should listen to their civilian superiors, and they should follow with faithfulness the lawful orders of the political appointees of the elected President. They should not shirk.
One common thing in principal-agent theory is that agents can find ways not to execute faithfully. The military should have an ethos of faithfully executing lawful orders. If you get into the habit of shirking, when it comes to peacetime, are you going to shirk in wartime?
SALIENT: Trump makes a lot of apparently outlandish comments and then pulls back: whether it be the annexation of Greenland or of Canada being our 51st state. These are all suggestions that he will use military force. What is your perspective on comments like that?
RUGER: One of the things I like about this President is his willingness to break through old thinking setting us back from achieving our goals. He can be non-traditional. The question of Greenland is worth bringing up. Historically, the United States has had a history of peaceful expansion that has been good for America. I don't know how many Americans reject the Gadsden Purchase, the Louisiana Purchase, or Alaska. I would love to see that we purchase Greenland, and we should get a good deal for it. And I think the President is someone who's able to get a good deal. I think President Trump has a lot of credibility when it comes to these issues.
SALIENT: Do you see a world in which 50-100 years from now, Russia moves from being a historical adversary of the United States and towards a partnership against China?
RUGER: In international politics, despite what people like to say, there are no permanent friends or permanent enemies. That's the best way to approach the world. Probably, the most important alliance in American history was our alliance with France, which helped us secure our independence from the British. And what did George Washington, our greatest President, do? He essentially flaked on that alliance when it no longer served America's national interests. If you read Washington's farewell address or the neutrality proclamation, you see a shift in American foreign policy that supported our national interests when circumstances change. So, when circumstances change, your foreign policy has to take that into account.
We went from having the Japanese attack us brutally in 1941 to crushing the Japanese Empire to then having an alliance with Japan that has been long-standing because of a common interest in protecting against Soviet expansionism. So you can see how these things can change now. Do I anticipate that we would have a cozy relationship with Putin? I doubt it. I think it's a bad regime. He’s not someone, I would argue, we should be aligned with. I would like to see a relationship that didn't push Russia and China as tightly together. That would be a good thing for the United States because Russia, along with India, Japan, South Korea, and Vietnam are part of a counterbalancing coalition to the rise of China. Again, that doesn't mean you have to form a new NATO that would include Russia. You don't need a permanent alliance structure to have relationships that can serve American national interests.