During the South Carolina Freedom Summit, Florida Senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio argued that “our strategy on global jihadists and terrorists, [should resemble] the movie 'Taken.' Liam Neeson… had a line, and this is what our strategy should be: ‘We will look for you, we will find you, and we will kill you.’” Although the Senator was hopefully attempting to showcase his comical side, his statement embodies the irresponsible trivialization of foreign affairs that dominates political conversations today.

Unfortunately, such imprudent thinking equally plagues both political parties. During an interview regarding America’s strategy to defeat ISIS, Secretary of State John Kerry was asked, “As a practical matter, how does introducing more weapons to the region help stabilize it?” Secretary Kerry’s response? “We’ll, they are defensive weapons.”

However, foolish statements made by public officials aren’t what drive me to smash my head against my desk in frustration. Policymakers are little more than salespeople these days; they’ve got to compress complex policy plans into short, memorable statements. In other words, policymakers have an excuse for their folly. Harvard students, on the other hand, do not.

Harvard students have an interesting relationship with American foreign policy. For those undergraduates who come from wealth, their money insulates them from the consequences of American blunders abroad. Meanwhile, for many other students, the question of whether the United States will intervene militarily in a foreign crisis presents more of a whimsical dinner conversation than a matter of life and death. When a particular candidate or political group makes an outrageous or blatantly ignorant statement, these students laugh. How could they not? To them, the hooligans making a mockery of our country’s foreign policy are nothing more than fools who provide the occasional evening entertainment.

But when policymakers push half-baked ideas to enforce abroad, I’m left terrified beyond belief. The lives of my friends rest in the hands of those who handle international affairs like some sort of game. When politicians talk tough to defend their honor, they risk committing our country’s young to yet again fight in poorly planned campaigns overseas.

To make matters worse, the blame for American disasters abroad often falls on those in uniform, whilst those in Washington escape with impunity. According to our Army’s own website, the “Army’s mission is to fight and win our Nation’s wars,” not decide what wars to fight to begin with. Soldiers serve a government that is elected by the people; thus, it falls on the common citizens to elect officials that will shed American blood wisely.

Nevertheless, who terrifies me most are not those in office but the very students who surround me. Before coming to Harvard, I found myself confused by the string of poor decisions made by policymakers, many of whom have attended prestigious universities. Donald Rumsfeld graduated from Princeton, Paul Bremer (the leader of the disastrous Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq) graduated from both Yale and Harvard Business School, and Porter Goss (Head of the CIA from 2004-2006) graduated from Yale. How could such educated policymakers ultimately spearhead some of the worst geopolitical disasters in modern American history?

Over the past year and a half, Harvard has shown me the answer. The constant pressure to seem all-knowing discourages students from admitting ignorance. When asked about foreign policy conundrums, students defer to oversimplified, partisan answers rather than admit a lack of knowledge. Syrian Civil War? The solution’s somehow a mixture of bombing ISIS and accepting refugees. Russian aggression in Eastern Europe? Simply maintain sanctions. When our peers become tomorrow’s policymakers, it’s vague answers like these that’ll get people killed.

If the Kurds of Rojava refuse to return the land they’ve purchased with their blood to Assad, what should we do? If al-Nusra or Russia sabotages the upcoming Syrian ceasefire, should the international community turn a blind eye? Is there any legitimate manner in which we can force Assad to peacefully assimilate opposition fighters, or will an Assad victory be followed by years of purges and persecutions? If we let the war drag on for another five years, will there even be a home for Syria’s refugees to return to, or should we consider permanently integrating them into other countries?

I don’t know the answer to these questions, but I know what’s at stake, and it’s certainly more than any individual’s political career. The aforementioned statements from Rubio and Kerry are neither funny nor useful; if anything, they’re downright dangerous. Students preparing to enter the realm of foreign affairs shouldn’t sacrifice complex, thoughtful responses in the name of strengthening their image. If we let pride trump truth, then tomorrow’s foreign policy failures lie just around the corner.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of Harvard’s ROTC program, the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

Nathan L. Williams ‘18, a current Army ROTC cadet, is a government concentrator in Mather House. His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.