As the United States charges once more into war, little debate has centered on the actual utility of war. Instead, policymakers and pundits have focused their comments on combating the latest danger to our nation and its interests. In late August, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel claimed Islamic State was an imminent threat to every interest we have" and that the sophisticated group was "beyond anything we've seen." With few dissenting voices, either in Congress or in the American media, U.S. air forces plunged again into the unstable region of the Middle East. For well over a decade - one might suggest over multiple decades - the United States has been engaged in war, yet so few in the public sphere seem willing to ask, as a Vietnam-era hit song did: "War, what is it good for?" It seems plausible to argue that war is a phenomenon increasingly serving itself rather than any durable political goals. War as a political tool has more and more demonstrated its inability to deliver. As historian Mary Dudziak has artfully suggested, "Military conflict has been ongoing for decades, yet public policy rests on the false assumption that it is an aberration." If war provides meaning, why, as Dudziak asks, does military engagement no longer require "the support of the American people but instead their inattention"? If a theory of forward defense, of fighting on someone else's shores rather than our own, is the rationale for constant war, when will we achieve a sense of national security that no longer requires constant battle? What if peace never comes? What if war only engenders new enemies and new threats? War ... has not assuaged our fears of vulnerability. It has not left us with a more stable international environment. So we come back to that song's question: "War, what is it good for?" And we have to at least consider the song's answer: "Absolutely nothing."