1. JARED,
Military forces are ethical
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 .
1. JARED,Military forces are ethicalWhen a country maintains.docx
1. 1. JARED,
Military forces are ethical
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
2. 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
3. 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
2. 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
4. 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 19
th
century. At the beginning of the 20
th
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/e
book/bm
[email protected]
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
