Disclaimer: Not a rant about the solely horrible nature of hard power or pure negativity of brutality.
Military. An armed force, meant to be used solely for the purpose of warfare.
This may sound unconceivable or untruthful at first, but there was a time not too long ago when the intersection of arms, insecurity, the desire for 'unjust' power, and brutal competition were associated with a domain and reality other than the 'normal'.
Battlefields and warfare were seen as distinct from peace. Yes, true, life in Europe before, well, Industrialization, was a time when these two domains (let's call them 'normal' and 'abnormal') were fairly intertwined. (Sidebar: I mention Europe rather than any other region of the world because most of us have some knowledge of European history, but few of us (i.e. bloggers in the US) have knowledge of other regions.) Then came a couple of hundred years in between when humanity was thought to have made leaps and bounds - it introduced the concept of 'civilization'. And so pretty much every region of our world was civilized by those that felt they were already there, and had been better about getting there (at least every region that had strong agrarian output, people ready to sell their own for weaponry, and other such minerals and human labor considered necessary for the sustainability of civilization's high values). With such ideas and visions in mind, the human race (or some of it) pranced right into the 20th Century.
The 20th Century was an interesting century. As populations, empires, and ambitions evolved, battlefields (yes, the focus of this entry) merged with civilian areas - there was a merging of two domains that were previously seen as distinct. If an army attacked countryside dwellers before the period of Industrialization, it was considered 'barbaric' - it still happened, i.e. there was intersection between the normal and the abnormal. But they were considered distinct. However, increasingly through this space-time compressed and over-monetarized era, there has been a merging of the normal and abnormal. Whether we discuss the trilogy of 'Saw', 'terrorist'/insurgent tactics, cultural & religious ideologies, or various US administrations and their plans for liberating the rest of the world from the international regional dictatorships (enlightened and benevolent or not) they have worked so hard to maintain (Pinochet, Suharto, Sukarno, Ayub Khan…the list is long and intense), what was considered an aberration before has slowly weaved itself into what is considered normal. Sending 17-year-olds to fight wars in regions they know nothing about and sacrificing their golden years of education and intellectual growth, not the mention putting them through the trauma and guilt of killing babies while aiming at insurgents, is seen as a high-minded principle. There are countless other examples..... world over.
The irony..... today's high-minded principles were exactly such in all militaristic, expansionist, and dictatorial empires of our world’s history (or atleast what has been preserved - narratives of what those who have 'power' see as 'history'). What's sad, though, is that most of those empires could defend their annexed populations - they were smart, strong,and consistent enough to sustain their successes. In today's world, humans are all too ready to conquer, but not plan for the future. Military – armed force. Traditionally and inherently guarded, paranoid, and ever-so-ready for attack, or the idea/possibility thereof, however unrealistic it might actually be. Regardless, there is no room for pragmatic incompetency. Short-term goals, long-term consequences - a truly dangerous mix.
What I consider worse, is that the merging of normal and abnormal psyche has not contained itself as a disease of those in power, but is penetrating human society at all levels - through democratization of much information, corporatism and the ideal that 'you (each and every consumer) matter', and wars being fought in almost every region of the world. Yes, this has been happening throughout human history, but wouldn't you think that with so many NGOs, International Courts and Commissions, weaponry as deterrent, and the horrors of two (I would say far more than 2; Cold War is the third - also the longest and most effective in warping human consciousness worldover) world wars, the militarization of human thought and desire would have dampened? Nopes. In fact, we now have military entities rendering dialogue and soft power for the rest of us. Saying, and doing, what they like, in the name of hard and soft power. A future irony: military entities use the concept of smart power to justify more public expenditure, deaths, high-minded principles, and above all, their necessary existence. *smiles*.
Case in point: regional 'conflict' in IR theory and such variants is seen as having 5 stages - which would mean that a conflict really isnt a conflict in the eyes of the international community unless lives are lost... and 'brutally' lost. In a way that attracts the media. In a way that leads to economic profit....for some. The militarization of economic profit..... of human interaction.... of human thought and dialogue.
Our high-minded principle (*winks*) then, is to find ways in which hard power and its aims, justifications, insecurities, and brutality, both as cause and as effect, do not overtake a forgotten goal that trumps all others - perpetuation of humanity in the human race. That we use soft power not as a camouflaging force for hard power, or for manipulation and self-benefit (alone - *winks again*), but for furthering this ultimate, inevitable, and forgotten goal. As of now (i.e. science's current achievements), you need to be alive to spend money and overpower others...right? *smiles again*. We won't survive for long (as a superpower...*winks...is enjoying this*) if we pay more attention to military endeavors than ignored populations or global climate change. Soft power, and hard resource power (as Smith Windsor highlights in his article 'Soft Power, Hard Power Reconsidered') need to be used smartly to further the forgotten goal. Brutality in resolve, words, and actions, need to be used when truly necessary - brutality, like hard power is at times necessary (the intention behind it determines its nature - will argue this somewhere else in the near future). If this means using terms completely different from 'soft' and 'hard', such as internal or external, or liquid and solid (you never knowww... - *winks*), so be it. Amen. (for the sake of commemorating the long-standing tradition of associating religious ethos with ‘secular’ politics, economics, dialogue, and power). *Final wink*.
