When a country maintains a standing military force, it will eventually find a way to use it.
In this case, I completely agree, a country will always find a way to use its military force, with one caveat. A country will use its military force based on the reason for establishing the force. Meaning if an army is established as a defensive weapon, then it will primarily be used to defend the people, land, and interests of the country.
When the military force is used for something other than its reason for existence, this can cause problems. The society over which the government is presiding must accept the utilization of their military force, or the government will face the “social dissonances expressed in popular sentiment” mentioned by Dr. Moseley (2011). What this means is that if a military is carrying out orders issued by the government, but the society does not accept the goals of the government, there will be problems between the government and its people.
From an ethical perspective, I agree with the deontological viewpoint that a standing military force must be maintained as “…it would be a moral failure for a political entity to be defenseless against potential aggression (Moseley)”. George Washington (1783) shared this viewpoint. He explains that militias must be raised up, and a naval force created with the purpose of protecting American interests, and providing assistance to each of the newly established states. Without this necessary force, the newly established country would have no means to defend itself from invading forces.
In modern times, we have found new ways to leverage our military force to accomplish diplomatic goals. We carry out peacekeeping missions all over the world to protect American interests.
The U.S. would be better off if it had maintained individual state militias instead of creating the national armed forces.
I disagree with this statement. In order to defend a country against a national or multi-national military threat, the country must have a national military equal to that which is threatening it. If the U.S. had not nationalized the military, the individual state militias would have been composed of many unique fighting units, with unequal training, unequal equipment, and unequal manpower. Transforming them into an organized fighting unit would have been impossible, and they would not have had the capability of protecting our people, land, or interests. Individual state militias would have been unable to contend with the fighting forces of the Axis powers in World War II, and individual state militias would not have been able to prevent Soviet Nuclear expansion into the western hemisphere. Halting these immense threats was absolutely mandatory and ethical.
When a country does not have a strong national military, or only has smaller state militias, if they face a strong aggressor, their people, not their military will face the most hardships. A modern example of this is the war in Afghanistan. The war has been a long protracted conflict. When the U.S. began its invasion in 2001, the standing military force was the Taliban. The Taliban is actually a group of regionally oriented militias, united under the banner of Islam and Mullah Mohammad Omar. Throughout the conflict the Taliban has been out manned, and outgunned by the U.S. and coalition forces, however, they have been able to maintain a constant threat to peace in the country. They know a defeat of U.S. troops in total war is impossible, so they carry out guerilla warfare. The biggest casualty in a war of this nature is the civilian population. If the U.S. had maintained individual state militias instead of creating a national armed force, guerilla warfare would have been our only option against the Nazis and the Soviets, and both of those conflicts would have ended in an absolute bloodbath.
References
Moseley, A. (2011). Justifications of the Armed Forces. Retrieved from http://www.militaryethics.org/Justifications-of-the-Armed-Forces/11/
Washington, G. (1783). Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12. Retrieved from http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_12s6.html
- Jeffrey SA,
In a Utopian society , it would be very easy to make a statement that no country has a need to maintain a permanaent military or even a reserve military. We unfortunately do not live in such a world, and a such need to have a military to defend our freedoms and liberties as a sovereign nation. Throughout the readings for this week the underlying theme was that as a nation we have the right to self-defense. In two of the most famous works on war and miltary’s, these sentiments are echoed. “The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin” (Tzu, 2009), (Taken from The Art of War by Sun Tzu) and “He who desires peace, let him prepare for war” (Allmand, 2004), (Taken from De Re Militari by Flavius Vegetius Renatus). These quotes govern military mindset in both the eastern and western hemispheres to this day. In the past 100 years, this has been the driving force behind the US Armed Forces. As the reigning superpower of the world, America has used their military force as it should be used; to help less fortunate countries escape oppression and achieve democracy. Many seek to point out the flaws in this system, but are there any other systems that are working better? America has sought to provide self-defense to itself and achieved that goal by the end of the 19th century. At the beginning of the 20th century, American began seeking to provide self-defense to others.
I think the idea of maintaining a military at a state level would be a foolish idea. Assuming the question posed implies these would be temporary militaries, it would be very hard for a unit to maintain any sort of consistency, let alone the inconsistencies that would exist if state militias that didn’t have structured training for all states were sent to work together in a war such as Iraq.
Though Dr. Moseley’s article does a good job arguing for and against a military, one sentence resonates with me. “The lack of defense capabilities is so patently obvious a reason for why states have been invaded by aggressors that only someone without much historical knowledge could propose otherwise” (Moseley, 2011). This fact alone should be the sole reason that the United States maintains a well trained, permanent military.
References:
Tzu, S. (2009). The art of war. The Floating Press. Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzMxMzcyOV9fQU41?sid=b9cf2adc-ce06-448e-86f2-a68c978d7438@sessionmgr4005&vid=3&format=EB&rid=3
Allmand, C. (2004). The De Re Militari of Vegetius: a classical text in the middle ages. History Today, Vol. 54(6). Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.vlib.excelsior.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a983bfe9-41d3-49c5-b3d5-ceccf5e2dc40%40sessionmgr111&vid=2&hid=122
Moseley, A. (2011). Justification of the armed forces. Encyclopedia of Military Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.militaryethics.org/Justifications-of-the-Armed-Forces/11/
