5 ms·

The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds like the m

The military's purpose in modern times is not to bring peace, it is to preserve peace. I find it an important distinction, as "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. To "preserve" peace implies, at least to me, that the military is focused on the peace of the home population, and may take action elsewhere only in preservation of that home population's peace. Otherwise you have the crusades.

Sharlin 8y ago
> "[B]ringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. Well, that definitely seems to be the purpose of the US military.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  It was even the stated goal of neoconservatives launching US military actions, as 'nation building' and 'spreading democracy'. Honestly, "don't say bringing peace" feels alarmingly close to "obviously we did this, but don't admit to it".
hapnin 8y ago
The idea of the military preserving peace is like thinking a group of horny boys will preserve virginity. The US is the most aggressive military on Earth. There's no peace in its presence.
- grigjd3 8y ago
  Not gonna say the US military isn't aggressive, but I think it is at the very least debatable that China and Russia are less aggressive.
- dahdum 8y ago
  That's a hypothesis without much backing, history shows an interventionist hyper power reduces conflict. We've seen Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica, and now Pax Americana. There could be shining utopia without military conflict in the future, but personally I'd rather not take the risk during my lifetime. Many equally matched opponents has historically resulted in brutal warfare.
  - Bartweiss 8y ago
    Leaving aside Pax Americana to look at more settled history: none of those events were peaceful in global terms. There's a reason the general term is pax imeperia. The Pax Romana was 200 years of relative quiet after 700 years of effectively constant war, and followed by another 200 years of war. The thing most historians stress is just how far from peaceful it was. In practice, Roman-held lands were at peace because all resisting inhabitants were already dead, and peace on the border constituted a period of slowed conquest and retrenchment. As soon as the political situation deteriorated, both domestic fighting and foreign glory-seeking resumed. The Pax Mongolica followed what was per capita the single bloodiest war of conquest in human history, wiping out perhaps 10% of Earth's total population and killing literally every person in several nations. The conquest stopped basically thanks a succession crisis. In return? About 200 years of relative peace and good administration, before the black plague fragmented the khanate. (And if we want to get cynical? The improvements to trade and travel under super- and hyper-powers are a key vector for pandemics. It's not sheer coincidence that disease ended the khanate.) The Pax Britannica... well, it was accomplished mostly with vicious oppression and butchering local populations until resistance stopped. In return, we got about a century of quiet empire, ending in a global war and yet another world-shaking pandemic (this time, the Spanish Flu). The history of imperial peaces is one of temporary quietude after an empire has killed off the opposition and reached a pause in its wars of conquest. Fighting remains on the edges, and the peace usually ends in yet another bloodbath as suppressed violence is unleashed - and often as disease wipes out large portions of the empire. It's peace by comparison, not absolute quality. (The one thing to be said for the Pax Americana is that it's been comparatively bloodless. Even across a double-dozen shadow wars and conquests, the act of conquest was vastly gentler than its predecessors - but the history of such things does not inspire hope.)
XorNot 8y ago
It's worth adding that this idea is why we have the somewhat paradoxical concept of laws of armed conflict. One of the express goals of things like the Genvea conventions is to ensure the prompt re-establishment of peace. You don't end war by starting with the assumption that there aren't and won't be anymore before you're successful - or you would've been already.
- mattkrause 8y ago
  Si vis pacem, para bellum?
gnulinux 8y ago
> "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. You mean exactly like US Military did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria due to "terrorism" and in various Central/South American countries due to "communism"? Bush specifically supported US "bringing" (his words) peace and democracy to the Middle East. This is not even the point. You're just reasoning very poorly. You found one "good" aspect of massive armies and then showed it as evidence of their non-evilness. But if you think more, you can see that massive armies can easily do bad to the world. The fact that they haven't done yet (which, they did) does not change this fact. If tomorrow US turns into the Fire Nation, you cannot stop it, I cannot stop it, no one can.
ionised 8y ago
No, the purpose of the military in modern times is to push, enforce and maintain the interests of the hyper-capitalist ruling class.
sfifs 8y ago
It's interesting that this line of peace even seems to be believed which shows the triumph of propaganda. Millitary in all ages has always existed to either further or protect the economic interests of the people in power.

Sharlin 8y ago

> "[B]ringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. Well, that definitely seems to be the purpose of the US military.

Bartweiss 8y ago
It was even the stated goal of neoconservatives launching US military actions, as 'nation building' and 'spreading democracy'. Honestly, "don't say bringing peace" feels alarmingly close to "obviously we did this, but don't admit to it".

hapnin 8y ago

The idea of the military preserving peace is like thinking a group of horny boys will preserve virginity. The US is the most aggressive military on Earth. There's no peace in its presence.

grigjd3 8y ago
Not gonna say the US military isn't aggressive, but I think it is at the very least debatable that China and Russia are less aggressive.
dahdum 8y ago
That's a hypothesis without much backing, history shows an interventionist hyper power reduces conflict. We've seen Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, Pax Mongolica, and now Pax Americana. There could be shining utopia without military conflict in the future, but personally I'd rather not take the risk during my lifetime. Many equally matched opponents has historically resulted in brutal warfare.
- Bartweiss 8y ago
  Leaving aside Pax Americana to look at more settled history: none of those events were peaceful in global terms. There's a reason the general term is pax imeperia. The Pax Romana was 200 years of relative quiet after 700 years of effectively constant war, and followed by another 200 years of war. The thing most historians stress is just how far from peaceful it was. In practice, Roman-held lands were at peace because all resisting inhabitants were already dead, and peace on the border constituted a period of slowed conquest and retrenchment. As soon as the political situation deteriorated, both domestic fighting and foreign glory-seeking resumed. The Pax Mongolica followed what was per capita the single bloodiest war of conquest in human history, wiping out perhaps 10% of Earth's total population and killing literally every person in several nations. The conquest stopped basically thanks a succession crisis. In return? About 200 years of relative peace and good administration, before the black plague fragmented the khanate. (And if we want to get cynical? The improvements to trade and travel under super- and hyper-powers are a key vector for pandemics. It's not sheer coincidence that disease ended the khanate.) The Pax Britannica... well, it was accomplished mostly with vicious oppression and butchering local populations until resistance stopped. In return, we got about a century of quiet empire, ending in a global war and yet another world-shaking pandemic (this time, the Spanish Flu). The history of imperial peaces is one of temporary quietude after an empire has killed off the opposition and reached a pause in its wars of conquest. Fighting remains on the edges, and the peace usually ends in yet another bloodbath as suppressed violence is unleashed - and often as disease wipes out large portions of the empire. It's peace by comparison, not absolute quality. (The one thing to be said for the Pax Americana is that it's been comparatively bloodless. Even across a double-dozen shadow wars and conquests, the act of conquest was vastly gentler than its predecessors - but the history of such things does not inspire hope.)

XorNot 8y ago

It's worth adding that this idea is why we have the somewhat paradoxical concept of laws of armed conflict. One of the express goals of things like the Genvea conventions is to ensure the prompt re-establishment of peace. You don't end war by starting with the assumption that there aren't and won't be anymore before you're successful - or you would've been already.

mattkrause 8y ago
Si vis pacem, para bellum?

gnulinux 8y ago

> "bringing" peace sounds like the military's purpose is to force outsiders who may be viewed as unpeaceful to adopt new culture which is viewed as more peaceful. You mean exactly like US Military did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria due to "terrorism" and in various Central/South American countries due to "communism"? Bush specifically supported US "bringing" (his words) peace and democracy to the Middle East. This is not even the point. You're just reasoning very poorly. You found one "good" aspect of massive armies and then showed it as evidence of their non-evilness. But if you think more, you can see that massive armies can easily do bad to the world. The fact that they haven't done yet (which, they did) does not change this fact. If tomorrow US turns into the Fire Nation, you cannot stop it, I cannot stop it, no one can.

ionised 8y ago

No, the purpose of the military in modern times is to push, enforce and maintain the interests of the hyper-capitalist ruling class.

sfifs 8y ago

It's interesting that this line of peace even seems to be believed which shows the triumph of propaganda. Millitary in all ages has always existed to either further or protect the economic interests of the people in power.