The Policy Of Keeping A Large Army And Glorifying War

The Policy of Maintaining a Large Standing Army and the Glorification of War: A Double-Edged Sword

The maintenance of a large standing army and the concurrent glorification of war are deeply intertwined phenomena with profound implications for societies throughout history. While a strong military can offer security and project national power, the glorification of war often fosters a culture of violence, aggression, and a distorted perception of conflict's true costs. This essay will delve into the complex interplay between these two factors, examining their historical context, societal impacts, and the ethical dilemmas they present.

The Historical Context: From Ancient Empires to Modern Warfare

The concept of a large, professional army is not a modern invention. Ancient civilizations like Rome, Sparta, and the various Chinese dynasties relied on substantial military forces to conquer and control vast territories. These empires often intertwined military prowess with national identity, cultivating a culture that celebrated martial skill and valor. Roman legions, for instance, were not merely fighting forces; they were integral to the empire's social structure, providing careers, land, and a sense of belonging to its members. This integrated approach, however, also contributed to a society where military strength and expansion were seen as essential for survival and prestige.

The glorification of war in these ancient societies manifested in various forms: public celebrations of victories, the construction of monumental structures commemorating military achievements, and the creation of heroic myths and legends centered around military leaders and battles. These narratives, while often serving to bolster national unity and morale, also served to desensitize populations to the brutality and human cost of war.

The medieval period saw a shift towards feudal systems, where armies were largely composed of levies and knights. While the scale of standing armies was smaller compared to ancient empires, the glorification of chivalric warfare persisted, shaping societal values and ideals. The romanticized image of the noble warrior, fighting for honor and glory, became deeply ingrained in cultural narratives. This romantic vision, however, often obscured the realities of medieval warfare, which was often brutal, chaotic, and indiscriminate.

The rise of nation-states in the early modern period brought about a renewed focus on building and maintaining large standing armies. The development of advanced weaponry and military strategies necessitated professional, well-trained forces capable of sustained campaigns. The Napoleonic Wars, for example, witnessed the mobilization of massive armies, showcasing the devastating potential of large-scale warfare. Nationalism and the rise of aggressive imperial ambitions further fueled the growth of military establishments and their glorification.

The 20th and 21st centuries have witnessed the escalation of warfare on an unprecedented scale, alongside a sophisticated propaganda machine designed to shape public perception of war. The two World Wars, along with numerous smaller conflicts, demonstrated the catastrophic consequences of both military expansion and the glorification of war. Yet, despite these tragedies, the cycle of military buildup and the celebration of military prowess has continued.

The Societal Impacts: A Culture of Violence and Militarism

The persistent policy of maintaining large standing armies and the glorification of war have far-reaching societal impacts, shaping culture, values, and priorities. These impacts are multifaceted and often paradoxical.

Economic Consequences:

Maintaining a large military requires a significant allocation of resources. This can divert funds from crucial areas such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure, potentially hindering societal progress and economic development. The opportunity cost of military spending is a constant debate, with arguments focusing on the potential benefits of investing those same resources into civilian projects. Furthermore, the military-industrial complex, fueled by the demand for weaponry and technology, can exert significant political influence, shaping national policies and priorities.

Social Impacts:

The glorification of war can lead to the normalization of violence and aggression. Military heroes are often portrayed as paragons of virtue, their actions romanticized and their brutality minimized. This can desensitize populations to the realities of conflict and create a culture where violence is perceived as acceptable, or even desirable, under certain circumstances. This can manifest in increased rates of crime, domestic violence, and social unrest. Furthermore, a military-centric culture can lead to an overemphasis on masculine ideals, potentially marginalizing other values and perspectives.

Political Impacts:

A strong military can enhance a nation's geopolitical influence and ability to project power. However, a large standing army can also lead to an increased risk of aggressive foreign policy and military intervention. The potential for military coups and authoritarian rule also rises when the military wields significant power and influence. Furthermore, the glorification of war can be used to justify expansionist policies and imperial ambitions, potentially leading to conflict and instability. The perception of a nation's military strength can also affect international relations, contributing to arms races and escalating tensions.

Psychological Impacts:

The glorification of war can have profound psychological consequences. The constant portrayal of violence and conflict in media can contribute to anxiety, fear, and desensitization. Individuals may develop a distorted perception of reality, particularly young people who are exposed to idealized representations of war. Furthermore, veterans may struggle with PTSD and other mental health issues, highlighting the long-term psychological costs of conflict. The glorification of war often fails to adequately address the trauma experienced by both soldiers and civilians.

Ethical Dilemmas and Moral Considerations

The maintenance of large standing armies and the glorification of war present numerous ethical dilemmas and moral challenges. The very act of preparing for war raises ethical questions about resource allocation, the potential for preemptive strikes, and the inherent risk of escalation. The glorification of war, by its nature, often ignores or downplays the ethical complexities of conflict, creating a simplistic narrative that obscures the suffering and injustice it inflicts.

The following key ethical concerns emerge:

• The ethics of killing: War, by its very nature, involves the taking of human life. This raises profound ethical questions about the justifications for war and the moral responsibility of those who participate in it.
• The treatment of prisoners of war: International humanitarian law sets standards for the treatment of prisoners of war, yet these standards are often violated in conflict. The glorification of war can contribute to a disregard for these laws and the dehumanization of the enemy.
• The impact on civilians: The vast majority of casualties in modern warfare are civilians. The glorification of war often fails to acknowledge the devastating impact of conflict on civilian populations, including displacement, death, and trauma.
• The role of propaganda: Propaganda plays a significant role in shaping public opinion about war. However, the manipulation of information and the dissemination of misleading narratives raise ethical concerns about transparency and truthfulness.
• The just war theory: This philosophical framework provides criteria for determining when war is morally justifiable. However, the application of just war theory is often complex and debated, particularly in the context of modern warfare.

Moving Towards a More Peaceful Future: Re-evaluating Priorities

The policy of maintaining a large standing army and the glorification of war are deeply entrenched in many societies. However, it is crucial to critically examine these practices and explore alternative approaches that prioritize peace and cooperation. This requires a multifaceted strategy that addresses the underlying causes of conflict and promotes a more just and equitable world.

This includes:

• Investing in diplomacy and conflict resolution: Diplomacy and conflict resolution mechanisms are essential for preventing and resolving conflicts peacefully. Resources should be allocated to strengthen international organizations and institutions that promote peace and cooperation.
• Promoting education and understanding: Education plays a crucial role in shaping attitudes towards war and peace. Educational programs should focus on critical thinking, empathy, and the understanding of diverse perspectives. The portrayal of war in media should also be critically analyzed and balanced with representations of the costs and consequences of conflict.
• Addressing the root causes of conflict: Poverty, inequality, oppression, and injustice are often underlying causes of conflict. Addressing these issues through sustainable development and social justice initiatives is crucial for preventing future conflicts.
• Re-evaluating national security strategies: National security strategies should prioritize non-military approaches such as diplomacy, economic cooperation, and humanitarian aid. Military force should be considered only as a last resort and subject to stringent ethical and legal scrutiny.
• Challenging the glorification of war: This requires actively contesting narratives that romanticize war and promote violence. This involves highlighting the human cost of conflict, promoting peace activism, and advocating for policies that prioritize peaceful solutions.

The path towards a more peaceful future requires a fundamental shift in societal values and priorities. It demands a rejection of the glorification of war and a commitment to non-violent conflict resolution. While a strong military may be necessary for national defense in some circumstances, it should never overshadow the importance of peace, cooperation, and the pursuit of a more just and equitable world. Only through a concerted effort to address the root causes of conflict, invest in peaceful solutions, and challenge the glorification of war can we hope to create a future free from the devastating consequences of armed conflict.