Military 2: legitimacy

It is difficult enough to legitimize the concept of a state, never mind one of its prime institutions: the #military. But for the sake of this discussion, let us pretend that the state has a right to exist. Then still, a military does not. “But, without military, who will defend the country against invasion?” Ah, and WITH the #state, who would defend the country against invasion?
The answer comes in two parts:
1) what does it mean to defend the country? It means to defend the job of the particular person that happens to be in charge, whether King William-Alexander, PM Mark #Rutte (who would wany to defend the job of such an anti-democrat?), kings Clinton or Bush or whoever, … Defending the country is never about the people, exvept in so far as they are needed for tax farming.

2) state’s armies have never in history, anywhere in the world been able to fend off an invader. The only possible exception would be France in WW1: I’m going by this page:

The toll of defending the French government was devastating, it may have been better to let the German soldiers walk into the country and replace the one government with the next. This might pose different problems when in #Africa, where different tribes have been unnaturally thrust into one country, because the colonial overlords wanted to appease their neighbours in Europe, in a petty display of myopic local power play. Perfectly oblivious, uncaring of the consequences for the rest of the world, and the future. Anyhoo, in such countries, e.g. Ruanda with its hutus and tutsis (or the middle east which is in a similar shambles because of different #muslim factions, like the sunnis, shiites etc.) all historically have different balances of power, relative to each other, and the colonial powers drew countries’ borders only with consideration toward each other’s desires, not the local’s dsires. In the (officially) #post-colonial period, the west (in particular the epitomy of the west, the #USA) imposed many a different dictatorial sock pocket leader upon the innocent public, because that leader would serve the “interests of the USA” best – for a long time, that meant installing a so-called capitalist regime, no matter how cruel and corrupt, to fend off the communists – even if those communists won the election fair and square. Obviously getting communists in power is going to hurt, look at the gigantic Russia, still cleaning up the ravages of 7 decades of communism. It just dawned on me that this would make a funny trigger-statement  on one of the anarchist-fora on Facebook (perhaps “anarcho debatism”?)  because ancoms desperately to try and cling to their hopeless and impossible beliefs, and lie,to themselves about the evils of capitalism.

Back to France in WW1:

More than 8,000,000 non professional soldiers where mobilized for the war.

Around 1,400,000 of the soldiers were killed. This is an average of 893 deaths per each of the 1566 days. That’s 1 of every 5.7 soldiers dead (not including any professionals, but they must have been a minority).

More than 4,300,000 men where wounded, which means an average of 2745 per day, this includes :

1,100,000 disabled
300,000 mutilated
42,000 blinded
15,000 broken faces

This does not count those that have had their mind destroyed by shell shock or some such.

Of France’s total population 1 out of 20 were killed.

52% of the total of men mobilized were killed or wounded.

I put it to you that the French army failed to defend France,  the population was slaughtered.

And since De Gaulle was a soldier during this war, he was aware of the horrors of warfare, which was why he surrendered to the nazis. Compare this to the great #Dubya: who not only did not defend the country, but actually killed heaps of soldiers (both Iraqi and American), while he was nowt but a lousy draft-dodger.  Next time someone calls the French “surrender monkeys”, perhaps this should be pointed out.

And all that, only to defend some politician’s job. While it is true that occupation is often horrible (if you’re Dutch or Belgian, Norwegian, Austrian, French, etc. just ask your grandparents about the horrors of the nazis, like the Dutch hunger winter of 1944 – as punishment upon all the people  for attacks by the resistance, food transports were stopped and people had to resort to eating flower bulbs).

But at least the horrors of the battlefield will be prevented.
Another approach would be the Swiss system, where (the male members of) the population has to own a gun, and be trained to use it. This kept Hitler from launching an invasion of Switzerland, even though Switzerland would have been useful for shorter transportation routes. According to Hitler’s advisors, his army may succeed in defeating the Swiss defenses, but he would not have an army left.


Published by


I am an author & an anarcharchist

One thought on “Military 2: legitimacy”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s