Whether military preparedness is a key concern for the sake of a community's longevity depends greatly on what type of community is being expressed. A country, for instance, has the greatest military capability of any type of community. The sole purpose of a formidable national military is to help ensure the nation's survival. It would appear quite obvious, then, that in order to continue a nation's existence, a strong army, navy, and air force would prove essential. In many cases this is true, however, there are exceptions. Many wars wage today, and countless others have in the past. However, based on a country's values many nations are able to avoid war almost completely.
Countries such as New Zealand, Denmark, and Norway are able to avoid war. As a result they are able to focus funds and resources of non-military programs. Peaceful countries benefit from low unemployment rates, successful educational systems, and low crime rates. When times are sound in relations with nations abroad, times are typically sound internally as well. So where do values come into play? Wars, like those in the Middle East, are fought on the basis of many different values. Religion is the major value at stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Governmental values such as political ideologies and leanings are key factors in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Social inequalities and injustices are values that create animosity between conservative nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan with more liberal ones liek the United States.
But those peaceful nations are able to avoid conflicts like these. War can be eliminated when values are controlled, when a nation's beliefs remain internal and are unable to affect international relations. Military is the primary concern for Norway. The nation is successful in keeping her nose out of affairs that do not pertain to her well being. Unlike Israel, Norway's military is not a priority. Though survival is indefinitely the ultimate goal of Norway, she is an example that proves survival is possible through non-combatant means.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You stated that "Religion is the major value at stake in the Arab-Israeli conflict." But that is incorrect. I used to think that that was the major reason for the conflict, but its core is at territory. You could argue (and maybe this is what you meant) that because of the Zionist movement and the desire for the creation of a homeland for Jews, which boils down to their religion as being the cause for the movement and the cause for discrimination in Europe, which caused tension because the Arabs felt as though their land was being taken away. But in world politics our teacher stressed that the key problem is land. I thought it was interesting when I learned this b/c the way in which the media portrays the conflict one is lead to believe that it is solely on religion. Other than that I agreed with many of your points.
ReplyDeleteI am going to be completly honest. I read your blog and thought that it made sense but disagreed on what it meant in terms of theory.
ReplyDeleteYour central agrument is that because these Nations are not at war and they still exist, there is the possibility for people and countries to survive without war and violance. I think you are right, there are existing and they do not have a military.
However all of these countries you named are under what I would like to consider "western hemisphere protection." It is great for them that they do not have a military. But I think its cause they just know that if anyone hits them, they would come running to the U.S. and our military would take care of it for them.
Iceland has no military but is so heavily affilated with the U.S. when it comes to economics, that messing with Iceland would basically be an attack on Rhode Island.
My point is: your right.. these countires lucked out because they get to spend money on things besides war. But the only reason your right is because the U.S. spends enough of our money on them first.