Extreme deification of the armed forces..

[harsh.ag]

I do think that one important factor while judging the conduct of any country's armed forces should be the nature of the enemy they are fighting and the things required to be done to beat such an enemy.

Many people in the modern era seem to be undervaluing this lens.

 

[Ausage]

Yesterday an important point was raised in a tv debate. This kind of deification has led to the situation in Pakistan where Army has more powers than the government itself. Most other democracies have at least avoided that situation.

No they haven't. They've just masked it better.

 

[Victor Ian]

I initially read the title of this thread as "Extreme Defecation". That is all.

A few days in and I have not been able to read this title as anything else.

 

[Spark]

No they haven't. They've just masked it better.

This is patently, manifestly untrue, and a really weird thing for you to say IMO.

 

[Daemon]

This is patently, manifestly untrue, and a really weird thing for you to say IMO.

The only ways it makes sense is if he means theoretically, if not in practice.

Most armies around the globe can stage a coup.

Would be a bit like saying China controls Singapore because they can bomb the living **** out of us any time though. Not a very useful way to attribute power.

 

[Ausage]

This is patently, manifestly untrue, and a really weird thing for you to say IMO.

The only ways it makes sense is if he means theoretically, if not in practice.

Most armies around the globe can stage a coup.

Would be a bit like saying China controls Singapore because they can bomb the living **** out of us any time though. Not a very useful way to attribute power.

I don't know if theoretical is the right term (and patently untrue certainly isn't), but at the end of the day modern Democratic governments serve at the pleasure of the men with the guns. If the army in any nation disapproves of a leader badly enough it won't be running the country. Simple as that.

Now we're lucky that we live (mostly) stable societies with little social upheaval. I'm sure many in the army buy into democracy as a system as well. But at the end of the day any state rules because its army is happy with them there and it's naive to forget that.

 

[harsh.ag]

I don't know if theoretical is the right term (and patently untrue certainly isn't), but at the end of the day modern Democratic governments serve at the pleasure of the men with the guns. If the army in any nation disapproves of a leader badly enough it won't be running the country. Simple as that.

Now we're lucky that we live (mostly) stable societies with little social upheaval. I'm sure many in the army buy into democracy as a system as well. But at the end of the day any state rules because its army is happy with them there and it's naive to forget that.

The army is not one thing. They will have many internal disagreements among the various people and divisions.

If the situation is that bad, it is as likely that the political leader(s) will first appoint a lackey/many lackeys at the highest military posts and then do whatever shenanigans they want to indulge in.

 

[Ausage]

The army is not one thing. They will have many internal disagreements among the various people and divisions.

If the situation is that bad, it is as likely that the political leader(s) will first appoint a lackey/many lackeys at the highest military posts and then do whatever shenanigans they want to indulge in.

Sure. There are different components to any group that can be fractured/isolated/weakened politically. The potential for manipulation certainly isn't one sided either.

The ultimate power resting with the men with the guns was the extent of my point though.

 

[Spark]

Sure. There are different components to any group that can be fractured/isolated/weakened politically. The potential for manipulation certainly isn't one sided either.

The ultimate power resting with the men with the guns was the extent of my point though.

There's a clear qualitative difference between the influence of the army in a country like Australia and a country like Pakistan. Clearly.

 

[sledger]

It's like that quote from Game of Thrones.

"Power is an illusion, or a shadow on the wall. It exists where people believe it does." Or whatever the quote actually was.

Anyway, Ausage is right in the sense that if the men with guns stop believing that you have the power, you ain't runnin' nothin'.

In most western countries it would take something pretty remarkable for that to occur though.

 

[Ausage]

There's a clear qualitative difference between the influence of the army in a country like Australia and a country like Pakistan. Clearly.

There's no functional difference in the amount of power available. They're just less inclined to use it.

I get that that's different. I just don't think it's as different as some are making out.

 

[weldone]

No they haven't. They've just masked it better.

Definitely not true about India - the Prime Minister has far more power than the Army Chief.

 

[weldone]

If the army in any nation disapproves of a leader badly enough it won't be running the country. Simple as that.

On this point, if the leader of a nation (except Pakistan) disapproves of an army-man even mildly, that man will never become army chief.

 

[vcs]

Sure. There are different components to any group that can be fractured/isolated/weakened politically. The potential for manipulation certainly isn't one sided either.

The ultimate power resting with the men with the guns was the extent of my point though.

So the bolded is the actual problem, not the existence of the state.

 

[Prince EWS]

So the bolded is the actual problem, not the existence of the state.

Sure. I'll back your gun control measures if you promise me the cops and the military won't have any weapons either.

 

[vcs]

I'd be all for it TBH.

Asking or expecting something like that to actually happen is like putting toothpaste back into the tube, though.

 

[Prince EWS]

I'd be all for it TBH.

Right but no-one's going to pay any attention to laws written by a mob with no weapons so everyone who wants to will just have guns anyway.

"Gun control" is enforced with threats of force - guns, primarily. So there's no such thing as gun control; only gun centralisation.

 

[Ausage]

Sure. I'll back your gun control measures if you promise me the cops and the military won't have any weapons either.

Don't forget those pesky law breakers.

 

[vcs]

Right but no-one's going to pay any attention to laws written by a mob with no weapons so everyone who wants to will just have guns anyway.

"Gun control" is enforced with threats of force - guns, primarily. So there's no such thing as gun control; only gun centralisation.

I get your point. If something results in gun centralization, that's a bad thing. I do feel it is good to discourage gun ownership by social shaming. But that's not getting it done on its own. I don't see anything wrong in putting in laws that make people jump through tighter and tighter hoops to get their hands on arms, until they eventually feel its no longer worth the bother.

 

[Prince EWS]

I get your point. If something results in gun centralization, that's a bad thing. I do feel it is good to discourage gun ownership by social shaming. But that's not getting it done on its own. I don't see anything wrong in putting in laws that make people jump through tighter and tighter hoops to get their hands on arms, until they eventually feel its no longer worth the bother.

Laws are just threats made at the point of a gun, though. The reason most people try follow the government's laws even when they disagree with them, and wouldn't follow laws you could make up yourself and post on the internet, usually isn't because they feel it's their patriotic duty to respect the democratic process or some other type of mystical nonsense; it's because they risk men with guns coming and taking them away if they don't.