Militarism

Militarism is a process of institutional re-bordering, a claim against the extant limits of military authority, a pitch to bend the contours of liberal democratic authorities from aversion to the police state. In a book entitled The Causes of World War Three , C. Wright Mills used the term ‘military metaphysics’ (Mills, 1956: 67) to denote the securitisation of foreign policy issues (as military problems requiring a military solution), a phenom-enon that gains momentum as military, business and political leaders serve the interdependent interests of a ‘power elite’ (Mills, 1956). According to Huntington, political liberalism is dependent on the terms of the jurisdic-tion or division of the public sector, or the prioritisation of the military in public affairs (Huntington, 1981). Although it may seem preposterous to many Americans today given prolific political commentary via social media, in the post-war period, even up into the 1970s and 1980s, being a member of the armed services meant abstinence from politics (Bacevich, 2013: xiii). The nature of a provisional or permanent readiness is the subject of a large body of work that more or less holds that Militarism does not depend solely on the status of the military vis-à-vis civilian authority. 6 48 Willem de Lint roles, subordination of the military to political leadership but at the same time recognition by political leadership of the professional autonomy of the military and minimal cross-fertilising interventions (by military in politics and by politicians in military affairs). Three features of current Militarism are pronounced and warrant fur-ther exploration. First, the articulation of liberal rule to military sovereignty is expedited where war is launched and continuously refreshed through a shock or spectacle. Recalling the problem of the reconciliation of estab-lished norms and emergent sovereign necessity, Militarism is regularly re-announced via an irruptive and perpetual emergency.

Social Affiliations of the British Army Elite Militarism is thus a term with meanings on a variety of levels. It implies a certain orientation in foreign policy, a certain balance of power within a society, the predominance of certain values in society, an elevated status for certain occupational groups, a widespread distribution of a certain style of life, and so on. Various indices of Militarism can be used. In the case of nations whose foreign policy is normally sub-ordinated to military priorities and military goals we may speak of Militarism. Wars almost always signify outbursts of Militarism especially if the countries involved are warring for essentially expansionist reasons. 4 The internal politics of a society need also to be scrutinized for signs of Militarism. According to Finer this means examining the military's normal mode of intervention in politics, the level to which this interven-tion is normally pressed and the resultant type of regime. 5 Militarism is obviously high in countries in which the military go beyond the normal legal and constitutional channels in exerting political influence or in which the military play a decisive role in actual government. At the institutional level whenever civilian organisations are subordinated to military objectives and partially or wholly integrated into military organisations, then we may speak of Militarism. Where public interest and involvement in military or para-military activities is high then militaristic sentiments are likely to be widely diffused through the society concerned. Finally it is also necessary to ascertain the degree to which military conceptions of discipline, honour and obedience are reflected in the lore and everday folkways of a particular community. Employing any of these measures we are bound to reach the conclu-sion that Britain has been singularly free of Militarism.

For they catch a glimpse of the confederacy of anti-democratic forces of which Militarism is the physical instrument. If democracy is to have any real chance of survival, it must comprehend, not only the strength of this confederacy, but the subtle and various bonds of interest which sustain it. We had best begin this inquiry with Militarism itself, as an operative institution. Militarism is the organization of physical force by the State, so as to be able to compel the members of another State, or some members of the military State itself, to act against their will. This provisional definition covers the two uses of “the military,” against a foreign country and for “police work” at home. Militarism is not, indeed, normally engaged in either of these processes, but in preparations for performing them in case of need. It thus stands as the surviving incarnation of pure physical force in a civilization the value and progress of which consist in the supersession of physical by intellectual and moral direction. The fact that it has harnessed to its chariot some of the finest activities of the human intellect and will cannot hide the truth that it stands for barbarism. It is not the business of Militarism to regard the rights or wrongs of the cause in which it may be employed. Neither in its career of preparation nor in its actual operation is it concerned “to reason why.” Though, like other living instruments, it may come, as we shall see, to develop some sort of will of its own, it ordinarily takes and executes the orders of others. Who these others are, and what the orders that they give, we shall consider presently. But at the outset we see in Militarism a simple manifestation of the State as physical power. The question “Power to do what?” does not yet arise. The candid admission of this fact in the conventional political use of the term Power is significant

This militarization shaped every realm of American life . . . making America a profoundly different nation. (P. x) Not least, the experience of total war in the first half of the twentieth century led to a moral numbness of Western societies as the bombing of cities from the air reaped a growing harvest of death among enemy civilians (Crane 1993; Sherry 1995). Militarism, as the term has come to be under-stood, is largely a state of mind (Vagts 1937). It is not to be equated with the existence of armed forces. Nor is it identical to military intervention in politics. Rather, it is a disposition on the part of a society (or at least large and influential segments of it) to glo-rify or celebrate martial deeds and martial values. Its most obvious manifestations at the beginning of the twentieth century were the jingoist and patriotic movements that supported arms races and war (Mann 1987). Theodore Roosevelt's description of the Spanish-American war of 1898 as a splendid little war and the crowds that cheered the soldiers on their way to war in Europe in 1914 were both expressions of Militarism. Militarism as an attitude of mind was fostered with the creation at the end of the nineteenth century of a wide range of societies aimed at lobbying on behalf of increased military spending, of training youth for war (the Boy Scouts being one notable example), and veterans' associations (Boemke, Chickering, and Forster 1999). This Militarism and its sustaining organiza-tional structure continue today. ABOLISHING WAR AND CAUSES OF WAR The root question, of course, is: What causes war? For those concerned with abolishing war, or at least reducing its incidence and severity, the question of the causes of war is a pressing one. There has been much debate and some research on this issue (for recent representative work, see Brown, Cote, and Lynn-Jones 1998; Kagan 1995; Levy 2001; Midlarsky 1989, 2000; Rotberg and Rabb 1988; Vasquez 2000).

Masculine social norms in international politics are particularly evi- dent in militarized institutions, which are structured around gendered, 44 Gender, War, and Militarism hierarchical relationships both within the institutions and in their accom- plishment of their missions (Tickner 1992). The term “militarization” is used to denote when “militaristic values (e.g., a belief in hierarchy, obedience, and the use of force)” are adopted by states, organizations, individuals, corporations, and so on (Enloe 2007, 4). Feminists have associated milita- rism, masculinity, and wartime hero narratives, arguing that militaristic behavior is a path by which men and masculine states can prove their masculinity (Huston 1983, 271; Sjoberg 2006b). Idealized masculinities for soldiers throughout history have included characteristics associated with aggression, bravery, courage, service, precision, and protection (Hooper 2001, 81). Idealized militarized masculinities are social, but they are also physical, where militaries emphasize the soldiers’ physical strength, par- ticularly upper body strength, by means of training exercises and cer- tain areas of specialization within militaries (i.e., the Navy SEALS, Army Rangers). Many militaristic cultures emphasize the physical and social traits of a soldier in opposition to femininity. These accounts emphasize the impor- tance of physical and upper body strength, framing soldiering in opposi- tion to women’s “natural” lack of upper body strength and other physical capabilities (Miller 1998). If “men” are physically capable of soldiering and physical incapacity to soldier is feminized, then both the “sex” (male/ female) and “gender” (masculine/feminine) compositions of militaries are overdetermined. Other characteristics associated with masculinity and valued by the process of militarization (such as stoicism and rational- ity) also masculinize Militarism.

At home, this led the military to view civilians and civil institutions as objects of, or obstacles to, military efficiency. In facing the outside world, it led to a paranoid, warlike foreign policy. “The purpose of Militarism,” as the president maintained to the 1916 graduating class of West Point, “is to use armies for aggression.” Autocratic, military-dominated groups, he agreed with one correspondent, “may easily be led into ordering mobilization and entering upon war out of mere apprehension of danger from their neighbors.” Wilson also suggested more than once that he agreed with Howe’s argument that “privileged interests” promoting imperialism were a factor in the “countless irritations, conflicts and diplomatic contests” of power politics. Finally, the president, as discussed earlier, was wary of the influence of munitions makers in government. He therefore not only called for greater public ownership of American munitions plants but also thought that other nations should do the same thing with their own munitions industry. In fact, Wilson initially included government control of the manufacture and sale of munitions in his proposal for a pan-American peace pact. 36 Other liberal internationalists indicted reactionary forces within nations for power politics as well. Franklin Giddings of the LEP thought that “the monstrous egotism and the medieval-mindedness of the absolute monarchs” and the “manufacturers of artillery and powder” helped to bring on the war. Theodore Marburg, another leading figure in the LEP, suggested that “autocratic government” had something to do with the cause of war, while Weyl, more broadly, identified power politics with the political ambitions of “financial-military” elements in society

The armed forces continue to represent the exemplar masculinist institution in terms of their dominant values and gendered division of labor. These models of masculinity extend beyond the military and tend to shape hege- monic ideologies of what it is to be a man throughout many aspects of life. From the links between privately funded elite British schools, through children’s toys to video games and other aspects of popular culture, military mas- culine culture continues to be valorized. The reciprocal relationship between Militarism and masculinity functions at the level of identity as well as the state (Higate, 2003b). For example, War, Militarism, and Masculinities • 443 aspects of the British criminal justice system are influenced by paramilitary symbols and practice as a way in which to legitimate partic- ular forms of violence such as those used by the police force. In light of the recent military action by the United States and allies against Iraq, there has been a regression to traditional gender roles, with men cast as the protectors and women as the protected. In looking to the future of the gendered culture of the British armed forces, we have made a number of speculative com- ments about potential areas of development. As wider social change intensifies, we might expect that the military would reflect these influences, given that it has been argued to be a microcosm of its host society. Yet, not only does military culture change slowly (Goldstein, 2001), but in addition, it has been argued that there exists a growing gulf between the military and civilian spheres, particularly politicians, few of whom have direct experi- ence of military service (Dandeker, 2000).