Governments tend to include military organizations which have grown large and complex with an abundance of machines and electronic communications. A sober realist who studies weapons technology and the mind set of the creators will have serious doubts about the prospects for peace in decades to come. For the foreseeable future, competition to establish military dominance would seem inevitable.
It is easy to argue that most humans seek dominance, are ready to fight, and support governments with advanced weapons. When US President Eisenhower retired in 1961, he warned US citizens of the military industrial complex. He stated prophetically: “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
When all is said and done, the military has two functions:
1. Destroy property
2. Kill other humans
Soldiers are rewarded for destroying property and killing other humans; they cannot make independent evaluations based on deeply felt, personal expressions of caring, concern, justice and freedom. Military personnel have ethics or rules of conduct that control their behavior within military organizations.
There are also “rules of war” that are often ignored in combat situations. An ethical soldier may do great harm to others as long as he protects his comrades and follows orders. Some soldiers are sociopathic criminals who take advantage of war to commit atrocities against civilians.
While you could argue that many soldiers are basically good people who commit socially sanctioned crimes, there is an equal argument that soldiers are the agents of evil and cannot be excused. There is another argument that soldiers are also victims. They are killed by the people they are supposed to kill, but more, they are agents of a political elite who chose war over negotiation and compromise. The politicians do not go to war, nor do their family members. High ranking officers stay at a safe distance from the battles and order others to kill and be killed.
In Canada on November 11 every year, people gather to remember soldiers who died in past wars. There is a collection of veterans, current military personnel, politicians, media people and ordinary citizens. An assumption is made that remembering the victims of the war serves the interests of living Canadians. The same misleading platitudes are repeated every year. There are references to honor, courage, valor, freedom, even references to fighting that will end all wars.
One of the clashes in every society occurs between hawks and doves. While one group is directly or indirectly approving of solders killing others in defense of “freedom” another group is opposing combat roles. Weapon lovers talk about the enemy with great enthusiasm. They want to use freedom destroying weapons to defend freedom. Without an enemy, expensive weapons look ridiculous. Hopeful idealists imagine a different nonviolent world with an external nervous system that links minds in grooming and altruistic information sharing that will render the two military activities (killing and property destruction) obsolete.
Every country that can afford high tech weapons makes a substantial investment in armaments. As new weapons are manufactured in more affluent countries, older weapons are sold to poorer countries so that the ability to destroy property and kill humans is well distributed over the planet.
The Kalashnikov AK-47 is a hand-held automatic rifle; an agent of death that sprays bullets in the direction it is pointed. Little or no training is required to kill other humans. Several countries manufacture and export them. They are sold to governments, criminals, civilians, terrorist and are used by child soldiers. Hodges described Kalashnikov societies where the proliferation of the weapon “makes it impossible for civil society to assert itself and halt the killing.”
A report compiled by the US Congressional Research Service stated: "We are at a point in history where many of these sales are not essential for the self-defense of these countries and the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas...Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based on economic motives."
In 2008, the United States was responsible for two-thirds of all armaments sales to other countries, valued at $37.8 billion, increased from $25.4 billion sales in 2007. Italy was second, with $3.7 billion in weapons sales in 2008. Russian sales were down from the $10.8 billion in 2007 to 3.5 billion in 2008. Sales from the US to developing nations included a $6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, a $2.1 billion jet fighter deal with Morocco and a $2 billion attack helicopter agreement with Taiwan. Other large weapons agreements were reached with India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil.
India and China, the two most populous nations on the planet are creating large, powerful military organizations with nuclear weapons. China has advanced missile and submarine technology that gives them the offensive capacities that rival the worst that the US and Russia have to offer. The balance of power is shifting to Asia. The idea is not avoid war, but to avoid losing a war. Eisenhower was right. The military industrial complex is a powerful and atavistic force that absorbs inordinate wealth, dedicated to destruction and death. The cover of national security and military honor keeps most citizens confused and docile. At home, military personnel wear attractive uniforms adorned with badges, and medals. They have bands, marches, and perform impressive funerals. Their cemeteries and national monuments to honor dead soldiers are often visited by patriotic citizens.
Anyone who really wants peace will have to confront and constrain governments that spend their money on weapons. They will have to reduce and redefine the nature and conduct of military organizations. The power of the military industrial complex must be reduced. The international sale of surplus armaments must eventually cease. Guns at home must be banned. The problem, of course, is that no country will disarm unilaterally. In the USA, few citizens will give up their own guns. They are ready to fight. Everyone has to disarm at the same time to the same degree and so far, this is impossible.
Transforming the Military Mind
Canadian military organizations have undertaken peace-keeping roles in several countries and have contributed to disaster relief at home and abroad. If you change the enemy from people you do not like or fear, to human vulnerability with a growing list of natural threats, then military organizations become valuable assets to countries that have them. Although the military mind has developed from innate tendencies that are not going to disappear, a shift in focus and priorities is already underway in the 21st century. This shift requires better education of participants, more cooperation among agencies within countries, more international cooperation, less secrecy and a big dose of compassion.
Since I am convinced that human nature includes competition, conflict and killing, I do not expect as miraculous cessation of hostilities. I cannot expect that a minority of well-informed, well-intentioned peace keepers can restrain their more belligerent and less informed neighbors. If there is hope, it lies in the impracticality of war and the pacifying effect of sustainable affluence.
The notion of national security as a discrete, definable goal is already obsolete, but lingering devotion to this archaic concept is an important obstacle to transforming the military mind. The smart people within the military realize that the world is changing; interdependencies are growing, vulnerabilities are increasing and threats are well distributed. Nations are porous with little or no hope of defending even well-defined boundaries.
Resources are limited and the cost of paranoid defense preparations is becoming an luxury even for affluent countries that are running deficits just to keep going. Many countries are living on loans that they will either have to pay back in the coming decades or join a growing list of failed states who defaulted on loan repayment.
It is cheaper to abandon enemy- based thinking and to cooperate with other nation states to cope with catastrophes to come. While there many humans that blow up assets and kill others, the belief that terrorists as a special and most important threat is an expensive, paranoid delusion.
Surving Human Nature by Stephen Gislason
It is easy to argue that most humans seek dominance, are ready to fight, and support governments with advanced weapons. When US President Eisenhower retired in 1961, he warned US citizens of the military industrial complex. He stated prophetically: “The conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”
When all is said and done, the military has two functions:
1. Destroy property
2. Kill other humans
Soldiers are rewarded for destroying property and killing other humans; they cannot make independent evaluations based on deeply felt, personal expressions of caring, concern, justice and freedom. Military personnel have ethics or rules of conduct that control their behavior within military organizations.
There are also “rules of war” that are often ignored in combat situations. An ethical soldier may do great harm to others as long as he protects his comrades and follows orders. Some soldiers are sociopathic criminals who take advantage of war to commit atrocities against civilians.
While you could argue that many soldiers are basically good people who commit socially sanctioned crimes, there is an equal argument that soldiers are the agents of evil and cannot be excused. There is another argument that soldiers are also victims. They are killed by the people they are supposed to kill, but more, they are agents of a political elite who chose war over negotiation and compromise. The politicians do not go to war, nor do their family members. High ranking officers stay at a safe distance from the battles and order others to kill and be killed.
In Canada on November 11 every year, people gather to remember soldiers who died in past wars. There is a collection of veterans, current military personnel, politicians, media people and ordinary citizens. An assumption is made that remembering the victims of the war serves the interests of living Canadians. The same misleading platitudes are repeated every year. There are references to honor, courage, valor, freedom, even references to fighting that will end all wars.
One of the clashes in every society occurs between hawks and doves. While one group is directly or indirectly approving of solders killing others in defense of “freedom” another group is opposing combat roles. Weapon lovers talk about the enemy with great enthusiasm. They want to use freedom destroying weapons to defend freedom. Without an enemy, expensive weapons look ridiculous. Hopeful idealists imagine a different nonviolent world with an external nervous system that links minds in grooming and altruistic information sharing that will render the two military activities (killing and property destruction) obsolete.
Every country that can afford high tech weapons makes a substantial investment in armaments. As new weapons are manufactured in more affluent countries, older weapons are sold to poorer countries so that the ability to destroy property and kill humans is well distributed over the planet.
The Kalashnikov AK-47 is a hand-held automatic rifle; an agent of death that sprays bullets in the direction it is pointed. Little or no training is required to kill other humans. Several countries manufacture and export them. They are sold to governments, criminals, civilians, terrorist and are used by child soldiers. Hodges described Kalashnikov societies where the proliferation of the weapon “makes it impossible for civil society to assert itself and halt the killing.”
A report compiled by the US Congressional Research Service stated: "We are at a point in history where many of these sales are not essential for the self-defense of these countries and the arms being sold continue to fuel conflicts and tensions in unstable areas...Where before the principal motivation for arms sales by foreign suppliers might have been to support a foreign policy objective, today that motivation may be based on economic motives."
In 2008, the United States was responsible for two-thirds of all armaments sales to other countries, valued at $37.8 billion, increased from $25.4 billion sales in 2007. Italy was second, with $3.7 billion in weapons sales in 2008. Russian sales were down from the $10.8 billion in 2007 to 3.5 billion in 2008. Sales from the US to developing nations included a $6.5 billion air defense system for the United Arab Emirates, a $2.1 billion jet fighter deal with Morocco and a $2 billion attack helicopter agreement with Taiwan. Other large weapons agreements were reached with India, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, South Korea and Brazil.
India and China, the two most populous nations on the planet are creating large, powerful military organizations with nuclear weapons. China has advanced missile and submarine technology that gives them the offensive capacities that rival the worst that the US and Russia have to offer. The balance of power is shifting to Asia. The idea is not avoid war, but to avoid losing a war. Eisenhower was right. The military industrial complex is a powerful and atavistic force that absorbs inordinate wealth, dedicated to destruction and death. The cover of national security and military honor keeps most citizens confused and docile. At home, military personnel wear attractive uniforms adorned with badges, and medals. They have bands, marches, and perform impressive funerals. Their cemeteries and national monuments to honor dead soldiers are often visited by patriotic citizens.
Anyone who really wants peace will have to confront and constrain governments that spend their money on weapons. They will have to reduce and redefine the nature and conduct of military organizations. The power of the military industrial complex must be reduced. The international sale of surplus armaments must eventually cease. Guns at home must be banned. The problem, of course, is that no country will disarm unilaterally. In the USA, few citizens will give up their own guns. They are ready to fight. Everyone has to disarm at the same time to the same degree and so far, this is impossible.
Transforming the Military Mind
Canadian military organizations have undertaken peace-keeping roles in several countries and have contributed to disaster relief at home and abroad. If you change the enemy from people you do not like or fear, to human vulnerability with a growing list of natural threats, then military organizations become valuable assets to countries that have them. Although the military mind has developed from innate tendencies that are not going to disappear, a shift in focus and priorities is already underway in the 21st century. This shift requires better education of participants, more cooperation among agencies within countries, more international cooperation, less secrecy and a big dose of compassion.
Since I am convinced that human nature includes competition, conflict and killing, I do not expect as miraculous cessation of hostilities. I cannot expect that a minority of well-informed, well-intentioned peace keepers can restrain their more belligerent and less informed neighbors. If there is hope, it lies in the impracticality of war and the pacifying effect of sustainable affluence.
The notion of national security as a discrete, definable goal is already obsolete, but lingering devotion to this archaic concept is an important obstacle to transforming the military mind. The smart people within the military realize that the world is changing; interdependencies are growing, vulnerabilities are increasing and threats are well distributed. Nations are porous with little or no hope of defending even well-defined boundaries.
Resources are limited and the cost of paranoid defense preparations is becoming an luxury even for affluent countries that are running deficits just to keep going. Many countries are living on loans that they will either have to pay back in the coming decades or join a growing list of failed states who defaulted on loan repayment.
It is cheaper to abandon enemy- based thinking and to cooperate with other nation states to cope with catastrophes to come. While there many humans that blow up assets and kill others, the belief that terrorists as a special and most important threat is an expensive, paranoid delusion.
Surving Human Nature by Stephen Gislason