Outstanding, Robert! I really like the historical examples you selected. "Blinkered Generals" is one of my favorite phrases - many are blinded like horses in a race for glory. Our institutional tendency - in my experience - is to mock and denigrate our political leaders. This is dangerous self-importance, believing that only military professionals should deal with conflict. On active duty, for decades, I never thought once about civil-military relations, authorities, or decisions. Now it is all I think about.
It is indeed something not obvious to, let's say, a standard education (probably not the best term).
Somewhat related to this: I don't know how common wargaming was over the history, and I don't know how realistic wargaming is done (in a highly hierarchical society like the Japanese in WW2, I suspect it would be easy to ruin the wargame exercise due to social pressure), but I think to some extent, computer games have brought wargaming to the masses. True, strategy games are first and foremost games (so they have to be entertaining), but still, a strict rulebook with no regard for who is playing, is a very useful tool. So if one played enough various famous games, I suspect they would never ever make the mistake of ignoring resource storage, logistics, etc.
Or, outside of direct combat games, in the realm of civilisation builder, everyone who plays (e.g. the Civilisation series, or many others) knows that lack of armies will invite your neighbours to invade you. I.e., you have to have an army even if you don't plan to invade, only to deter invasion - exactly your point, basically.
You, perhaps wisely, stopped short of speculating as some have arguing that a firm stand against German reoccupation of the Rhineland might have toppled the Nazis without a war when Hitler was demonstrably unable to deliver. It is an interesting what if but perhaps a step beyond the military into the messier and more complex realm of politics.
True, but its an interesting proposition. You are right that the fundamental imperative was/is political, something (i.e. the desire to limit Hitler's ambitions using political means alone) that failed miserably. Interestingly, Hitler held, until 1940 an exalted sense of French and British military might, and was fearful until then that his project might be undone if he mis-stepped. As we know, it wasn't military might that undid the French, but the country's political dysfunction and a broken concept of defence.
If national governments understand that they have a common interest in managing and exploiting their own populations, who can be effectively united as a nation and reliably exploited only under the conditions of apparent adversity and existential anxiety, then the purpose of an army may be fundamentally different.
Hypothesis: The purpose of an army is to contain the natural propensity for violence and put it to profitable ends, allowing the most aggressive individuals to consensually kill one another, to pacify the population and to manage excessive population growth when necessary. “Defending your Country” is the oldest and most reliable means of population control and pacification, by directing the human propensity for violence against itself in an orderly fashion.
Reminds me of some syndicates at the Staff College.....
Ha ha! Those were the days 🙂
Outstanding, Robert! I really like the historical examples you selected. "Blinkered Generals" is one of my favorite phrases - many are blinded like horses in a race for glory. Our institutional tendency - in my experience - is to mock and denigrate our political leaders. This is dangerous self-importance, believing that only military professionals should deal with conflict. On active duty, for decades, I never thought once about civil-military relations, authorities, or decisions. Now it is all I think about.
I agree! Thank you
Kill the Kings enemies?
Certainly, where that is necessary!
Very well explained, thanks!
Thanks! I ran this exercise again on New Year’s Eve and fortunately everyone got the answer correct: an army exists for deterrence first & foremost.
It is indeed something not obvious to, let's say, a standard education (probably not the best term).
Somewhat related to this: I don't know how common wargaming was over the history, and I don't know how realistic wargaming is done (in a highly hierarchical society like the Japanese in WW2, I suspect it would be easy to ruin the wargame exercise due to social pressure), but I think to some extent, computer games have brought wargaming to the masses. True, strategy games are first and foremost games (so they have to be entertaining), but still, a strict rulebook with no regard for who is playing, is a very useful tool. So if one played enough various famous games, I suspect they would never ever make the mistake of ignoring resource storage, logistics, etc.
Or, outside of direct combat games, in the realm of civilisation builder, everyone who plays (e.g. the Civilisation series, or many others) knows that lack of armies will invite your neighbours to invade you. I.e., you have to have an army even if you don't plan to invade, only to deter invasion - exactly your point, basically.
(Sorry, maybe the above doesn't make much sense)
There’s more to these stories however… Happy New Year.
Much more
You, perhaps wisely, stopped short of speculating as some have arguing that a firm stand against German reoccupation of the Rhineland might have toppled the Nazis without a war when Hitler was demonstrably unable to deliver. It is an interesting what if but perhaps a step beyond the military into the messier and more complex realm of politics.
True, but its an interesting proposition. You are right that the fundamental imperative was/is political, something (i.e. the desire to limit Hitler's ambitions using political means alone) that failed miserably. Interestingly, Hitler held, until 1940 an exalted sense of French and British military might, and was fearful until then that his project might be undone if he mis-stepped. As we know, it wasn't military might that undid the French, but the country's political dysfunction and a broken concept of defence.
If national governments understand that they have a common interest in managing and exploiting their own populations, who can be effectively united as a nation and reliably exploited only under the conditions of apparent adversity and existential anxiety, then the purpose of an army may be fundamentally different.
Hypothesis: The purpose of an army is to contain the natural propensity for violence and put it to profitable ends, allowing the most aggressive individuals to consensually kill one another, to pacify the population and to manage excessive population growth when necessary. “Defending your Country” is the oldest and most reliable means of population control and pacification, by directing the human propensity for violence against itself in an orderly fashion.
Defend the Realm.
…is what it does.