Do the Ends justify the Means?

Machiavelli (a cunning advisor to the ruthless Italian House of Borgia) once said, “In the actions of men, and especially of princes…the ends justify the means.” The United States often used this maxim to rationalize its (sometimes nefarious) actions to impede the spread of Communism during the Cold War.

There are examples of this across the globe. In 1953, the CIA fomented a coup in Iran that overthrew the elected government of Mohammad Mossadegh and installed the Shah.  The U.S. feared that Iran, was moving closer to the Soviet Union. During the early 1970s, the U.S. government engaged in covert operations to destabilize Salvador Allende’s socialist government and supported a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet.

In both instances, “legitimate” governments were over-thrown and authoritarian regimes were installed. These are but two of the numerous instances where the US supported dictators. We tolerated harsh internal suppression so long as we got overt support for our policies in the region.

Why were we willing to undertake such actions that were in direct contradiction to espouse advocacy of global “Democracy,” The answer is clear: Containment of Communism was more important than the “cost” (in human suffering and corruption). Simply put, the ends (outcome) justify the means (which included compromises in integrity and values).

This philosophy appears as relevant today as ever. Many people dislike the rhetoric and conduct of Donald Trump but seem to agree with the objectives and the desired outcome. In virtually every realm of policy, the President has taken harsh, and sometimes extreme stances (often in contradiction of social and political norms).

He recently had a verbal (and very public) brawl with Ukrainian President Zelinski. There was shock among the media and political pundits. I taught national security policy at West Points during Reagan’s era. Such incidents were unthinkable. Political leaders are just not supposed to act that way. It is undignified. Yet, I might pause and ask, “Do we want politeness or results?”

For decades, American leaders have (civilly) tried to get other NATO partners to increase defense spending. Diplomacy has not worked. Additionally, the Europeans have had three years to work on a peace plan. They did not. Yet, within a few days they have effectively taken steps to resolve both of those.

Events seem to speak for themselves. In a crisis summit, European leaders radically altered their position. The European Commission President has now emphasized the urgency for Europe to rearm and stand firmly with Ukraine. ​That commission now proposes a plan that could free up $841 billion for defense. France and Britian have agreed to work on a peace plan to stop the fighting in Ukraine and then take it to the United States to broker a deal with Russia.

Trump’s rhetoric on the immigration and border crisis is perhaps even more strident. Upon taking office, he immediately signed ten immigration orders that fulfill his campaign promises of mass deportations and increased border security. He declared a “national emergency” at the southern border and deployed military troops.

Again, the results are significant. In February 2025, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended approximately 8,500 migrants, a significant decrease from 141,000 arrests in February 2024. This represents one of the lowest monthly totals on record.​

His tough talk on tariffs tied to border action resulted in the Mexican government deploying 10,000 soldiers to the border to help control the flow of migrants. Further, the administration has secured agreements with Mexico and Central American countries to accept deportees, facilitating the swift removal of unauthorized immigrants.

So, the results appear significant. While one may argue the desirability of his purpose, his actions are certainly in line with his election promises. But what has been the cost to America? What have we lost to get the results we want?

There has been payback for some of our actions. The Shah of Iran was overthrown in 1979. They held Americans hostage for over a year. Our staunchest ally in the region flipped to being the biggest opponent. We became “The Great Satan,” a target for terrorism. The international environment is not less hostile as a result of that policy.

There is now commentary to the effect that America has forfeit its leadership role in the world. Perhaps, but it depends on one’d definition of “leadership.” During my time in the military, I adopted a view that at its core, “Leadership is getting people to do willingly what they would not do of their own volition.” (after all, it is not in your best interest to climb out of the trench and charge the machine gun).

If such a characterization is valid, it would appear that Donald Trump is in fact a “leader” (albeit one that is sometimes hard to stomach). Countries around the world are now doing what they would not have done before his ascendancy. Perhaps they are acting under duress, but they are fundamentally doing so of their own accord.

In addition, it might be debatable whether America was really the “leader” we imagined. One might reasonably argue that rather than others following us willingly, we were simply buying their compliance. We overwhelmingly provided the resources for the security of Europe, even when they were capable (as we are now discovering) of doing much more themselves. Other than Britain (with who America has long had a “special relationship”), the Europeans have often not done what we asked.

Even as Donald Trump tries to “dumb things down,” we must acknowledge that the world is a very complex, interconnected and risky environment. “Simple” is not always the best course. Our actions (regardless of Administration) have never been “clean.” Initially successful policy has frequently come back to bite us in the butt. Additionally, the further we move away from our long-term national values and mores, the less we look like the nation we aspire to be.

Immanual Kant gave a counterpoise to the “Machiavellian” approach to policy. “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster.” Are we becoming that which we abhor?