Militarism

-  or  -

90 Years Later

Today, August 14, 2004, is the 90th Anniversary of the beginning of The Great War, World War I. Somehow, this comes just one day before the anniversary date August 15, 1945, the date Emperor Hirohito announced the unconditional surrender of Japan to the Allied Powers. Books and books have been written about this date, and other famous August dates, including those by such celebrities as Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Barbara Tuchman. This date, and the others in August, are ones no one should ever forget (even if they are now passing largely unnoticed).

August is a month too well memorialized by the calamities of war. The month's mentor, Caesar Augustus, insisted upon his name in the calendar, right after his uncle, Julius (July), as proof of  an Emperor's right and privilege.  That right or privilege was won by both Caesars in bloody wars, against the foreign Gauls and Celts by Julius, and later against worthy Romans (Brutus, Marc Anthony and all the others) by Octavian (Augustus). So, in our summers for over 2000 years, we are reminded of the Roman Imperium, founded on Roman might. Perhaps it is that example that inspired modern Kaisers, Tsars, and other namesakes to throw thunderbolts in competition with the gods.

Perhaps good weather in the Spring and Summer brings on wars, especially after the harvest. In agricultural societies, having a war to capture the other guy's hard work might be profitable. It's much easier to think about butchering one's enemies when the weather is not too hot or cold. In Western Europe, North America, coastal China and Japan, that's most of the year. As Americans are finding out in Iraq, war is much tougher in the desert heat. The Americans and Japanese had a hard time slugging it out over the Aleutians. Bad weather just slows things down tremendously. Even in modern societies, winter is too hard in most places to think about liquidating those awful others, so wars go with the weather. The proof of that view is the Russian strategy, immortalized by Tolstoy's Kutuzov in War and Peace, of using winter as a weapon against invaders. (Tolstoy was not far off about the historical Kutuzov, but rounded off a bunch of rough edges such as his alcoholism.) I believe Stalin was inspired by Kutuzov's example in his defense of Russia against the Nazis. Both defenses involved horrendous losses, some 25-26 million Russians in World War II.

Modern versions of militarism involve more than the simple philosophy of 'might makes right,' introduced in Plato's Thrasymicus.  Since most people reject the notion that brute force is ethical or creates morality, 'might' has been justified by 'right;' i.e., what is right should be enforced by might. This sort of argument is used to justify military preparedness in general, a familiar refrain in American political campaigns. The argument is supposedly from experience: aggressors will be deterred by strength, the certainty of counter-attack, and the awful punishment that comes with defeat because that is what has happened to past enemies, aggressors all. In a cruel and dangerous world, no one can afford to let down one's guard for an instant. Surely, self-defense is justified.

It is difficult, however, to justify the arms buildups of the last century that went far past self-defense. Germany's Kaiser Wilhelm II is blamed for World War I, because he pursued Germany's felt entitlement to colonies and the other perquisites of a Great Power. That blame ignores the constant itching of the French to get even for their defeat in the 1870 Franco-Prussian War. It ignores the sequence of (supposedly secret) alliances that were made in the 1870-1914 period, alliances that ultimately tipped the world into war. It ignores the European arms race that preceded the Great War. Self-defense was not the reason for the militarism of the late Victorian and Edwardian ages; rather, it was the cult of the nation founded on the belief that 'we are the best the Earth has to offer.'  The accumulated might required a justification beyond self-defense; something that would make it right.

In the United States, that justification was found in Manifest Destiny, the claim that most of North America is the natural heritage of the United States. Some people feel the United States is not just another run-of-the-mill country; it is something different, something special. These claims or feelings are the basis of American Exceptionalism, which is not quite the same thing as Manifest Destiny, but it is a close relative. In the case of Manifest Destiny, the Christian God charged White Men with the duty to enlighten infidels; i.e., the "White Man's Burden." This higher moral purpose enables the expansion of the White Man's frontiers and the removal of stubborn resistors, because it is God's will (we aren't responsible). American Exceptionalism is just that feeling (and claim) that America acts out of higher purposes, not base motives. What America does is right, and those who stand in the way are wrong.

Militarism seems to be more a cultural phenomenon or feeling than a philosophy or ideology. It happens when people seem to need something to swell their pride, like rooting for the home team. They are thrilled by uniformed soldiers marching by, just like the high school marching band. There is something about the mechanical lockstep, the very uniform-ness of it, that fascinates a lot of people. Then there is tribalism, as in 'support our troops,' and 'my country, right or wrong.' Most people seem to need to belong to something, to be defined by something other than themselves. The military provides certain direction to spinning heads, those who have difficulty making head or tail of where they're going. Questions such as 'who am I?' and 'what should I do?' are aborted in the military by obedience to orders and the insignia of ranks. Military training seeks to prevent questions, as that is inimical to loyalty.

Here, I need to say that I have a difficult time writing about militarism, because I have completely opposite, or at least different, feelings about the military. Most people are trained to believe the police and soldiers are their friends. This training begins early in life: I remember the police being portrayed as helpful "good guys" in Kindergarten. Despite the attempted brainwashing, I am suspicious of police. I believe the police are local bullies recruited to the purposes of the State, so cannot be trusted too much. But I am not merely suspicious of the military; I fear them. The military is composed of trained killers. A well trained soldier is at least as good as a Mafia hit man, and neither care about their targets. The military inspire fear because of their lack of concern; i.e., soldiers carry out their orders in a robot-like fashion. The whole point of the military is to instill obedience for fear of death, regardless of whose side you're on.

What the military do is fight. Perhaps in pre-historic times they were tribal hunters cum-warriors as need be. The skills are similar, except that warriors hunt humans. The attitudes are similar, as it is assumed the enemy and prey are worthless; without the spirit that makes someone one of us. Early human training, or maybe genes, makes almost everyone resistant to harming kin. So, one of the first things accomplished in military training is dehumanization of the enemy. The enemy must be seen as prey, even if more difficult to overcome than lions, tigers and elephants. One of the common war anecdotes are stories of the enemy being discovered as a person at the moment of the kill, a discovery which often confuses and paralyzes warriors. For that reason, face to face combat is considered the most vicious and dehumanizing experience. Personal combat exposes fighting's most basic level: survival of the fittest.

I note one of the amusing things our adult Baby Boomers have been doing is playing with toy soldiers. It has been quite a fad, especially among political conservatives. Lately, the History Channel has taken to reducing program costs by using toy soldiers and animated (computer-generated) videos to represent ancient and un-video-recorded battles and wars. This makes it easy to present the glamour and thrill of war, while at the same time avoiding the unpleasant consequences such as blood and gore. One of the most dangerous aspects of 21^st century warfare is its complete automation and lack of human connection. Enemies are targeted and destroyed as if they were toy soldiers, even by those manning the tanks and airplanes in the front lines. Automation has completed the goal of military training by making dehumanization of the enemy implicit in the use of war machinery.

● The military experience necessarily involves certain attitudes. First, as mentioned, it divides the world into black and white, them and us, with no middle ground. What we think of as "politics" cannot operate in an arena so defined, because normally politics is all about shades of grey. The military are often thought to be pure, as in the Samurai ideal, because they hold high principles without compromise, whereas politicians are anything but pure. This military attitude leads to despising politicians and their ilk.

 

● The uncompromising nature of the military leads to the second military habit: authority and obedience. From our earliest history, the military are divided into ranks according to who may order whom about. At the top, there are one or a few leaders, and at the bottom are the lowest buck privates. The leaders give orders to anyone, the privates take orders from everyone. This arrangement is tolerated because it is assumed the most able people rise to the top and, further, their ability guarantees success in war. (Of course, the truth of these propositions isn't tested until there is a war.)

 

● Military experience makes the military structure sensible to those subject to it, thus a model for civil society. Those who served in wars, or had long military experience, tend to have more authoritarian attitudes than the civilian population. Generally, they are more tolerant of strict, even strident, civilian government and intolerant of the confusion and wheeling-dealing of everyday politics. For this reason, the active and retired military are hotbeds of rebellion against non-authoritarian civil authority in every society. The Military find it easy to support Kings, Emperors, Pharaohs and dictators of every stripe.

I think it's worth noting that Nazism and Soviet Communism were military ideologies trying to parade about out of uniform. The Nazis were more honest in this respect, because they loved their uniforms and swastika arm-bands. But, both parties expected undying obedience and loyalty from their members. The Hitler mustache and the Stalin haircut were widely emulated. The Hitler Youth and Young Communist League were intended, like the Boy and Girl Scouts in America, to indoctrinate young people from the earliest ages. In all those organizations, obedience to authority was emphasized. Further, the authority was presented as all-knowing, all-seeing and (above all) Good while questions were discouraged. The Nazis and Soviet Communists decided things from the top down. This was justified, in Communist theory, by Engle's' proposition that the Party was the "Vanguard of the Proletariat." In the Nazi catechism, the ever-more honest Nazis proclaim the Fuehrer principle means, flatly, 'follow the leader.' (The Nazis proved the Greater Fool theory works most of the time.)

I am not going to write a book about Militarism, although maybe someone should. I believe Militarism is an abomination, one that plagues our times. Militarism is un-American, in so far as most Americans were against it in the beginning, and even before each of the World Wars. World War II was the turning point,

which made most Americans into tacit Imperialists and Militarists. Whenever we go about 'supporting our troops,' we concede something to Militarism. Whenever we try to justify the murderous wars we have conducted abroad, we are a party to Imperialism and its body servant, Militarism.

The worst is the common belief, expressed about terrorism, that it is better to fight them somewhere else than here. It doesn't matter where the somewhere else is, as long as it is not here. So, if in our fear and struggle, we flatten country X (and Y and Z), that's too bad; but, it doesn't matter. This is a tribal attitude brought to the modern world, made more dangerous (and unacceptable) because of the incredible destructive power in our hands. The Militarist term which covers this case is "collateral damage."

Implicit in all this is the proposed ethical standard, 'I am better than you.' This proposition is required to support all the abuses and injuries imposed on us by all the Militarists since 1864. But, in my ethical universe, that is an immoral proposition, and all that is rooted in it is likely immoral as well. That's why I am not an Imperialist or a Militarist.

1. Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary, 2003 V3.0 (software)

August 14-17, 2004

Last update: 11/07/2007

© Copyright California Expert Software 2007

All rights reserved.