The few soldiers I’ve spoken to, and these are special forces, want to go to a war. That’s what they trained for, not sitting around doing exercises. They want to know how they’ll do. Officers want to move up the ranks, make their mark and prove themselves. They want to be the ones to make the big move in Afghanistan, change the paradigm.

So these people are always there. They want leaders to engage in a war. They’re warriors. We are not. I’m guessing by the time they reach the level of advising the President or Prime Minister they’re going to be pushing for the opportunity.

This doesn’t have to make sense.

The few soldiers I’ve spoken to, and these are special forces, want to go to a war. That’s what they trained for, not sitting around doing exercises. They want to know how they’ll do. Officers want to move up the ranks, make their mark and prove themselves. They want to be the ones to make the big move in Afghanistan, change the paradigm. — Brett

Sorry, I don't think this is accurate.

Officers are trained to prevent and limit the liability of warfare to themselves (a nation) and there subordinates, as are or moreso, generals.

So these people are always there. They want leaders to engage in a war. They’re warriors. We are not. I’m guessing by the time they reach the level of advising the President or Prime Minister they’re going to be pushing for the opportunity.

This doesn’t have to make sense. — Brett

Sorry brett, but, not much of it makes sense insofar as to say that a police officer is there to shoot and kill bad civilians.

The decision to fight or not can be a principle that applies to every situation. But if one approaches it as a matter of conditions, it becomes a matter of choice. One has to decide: Is this where I fight or not?

The "pacifism" of Gandhi is militaristic in regards to calling for passive acceptance at every turn. The method is the most important thing. The model calls for adherence to a method despite the suffering it requires of those who carry it forward.

I bring up the Non-Violence movement more as an example than a last word on anything. Each point of view takes place in the context of States deciding to go to war or not. But each point of view is part of decisions a person makes as a person in their own struggles.

The different paths intersect in many ways. But they are different paths.
That is all I got.

Officers are trained to prevent and limit the liability of warfare to themselves (a nation) and there subordinates, as are or moreso, generals. — Wallows

How do you know that? I think they’re trained to win.

Sorry brett, but, not much of it makes sense insofar as to say that a police officer is there to shoot and kill bad civilians. — Wallows

That’s not the same at all.

How do you know that? I think they’re trained to win. — Brett

I know (a little) because I've been in the military, and if anyone in it wants to go to war for any... reason, then that's a sign of the derangement of the mind or some sort of illness.

It's the job of the military to not engage in conflict, but, to be so battle-ready that any adversary would think twice before bombing one of your home cities.

That’s not the same at all. — Brett

Are you sure?

I know (a little) because I've been in the military, and if anyone in it wants to go to war for any... reason, then that's a sign of the derangement of the mind or some sort of illness. — Wallows

What can I say? I guess I was lied to. But that’s not my impression, nor is it from the reading I've done.

It's the job of the military to not engage in conflict, but, to be so battle-ready that any adversary would think twice before bombing one of your home cities. — Wallows

When was the last time you saw that happen? If that was the theory then Britain would have waited battle ready for Hitler’s invasion?

cities.

That’s not the same at all.
— Brett

Are you sure? — Wallows

Are you suggesting the police and military perform the same purposes?

What can I say? I guess I was lied to. But that’s not my impression, nor is it from the reading I've done. — Brett

I mean sure, it's not like we walk dogs without a leash, and the dogs of war need to have enough stress hormones and neurotransmitters circulating in their blood to even be able to send them out to wars. But, the point I mean to be getting at here, is that there's no need for saber-rattling nowadays or escalation of tentions to prevent war. It's nasty enough as it is.

(Please keep in mind, that this is different from small skirmishes or wars born out of need for defense from a threat that might grow out of proportions to control via diplomacy or even covert conflicts)

When was the last time you saw that happen? — Brett

Read military manuals or ask some officers in uniform if they seem too trigger happy, which I don't honestly think they would nod their head in approval.

If that was the theory then Britain would have waited battle ready for Hitler’s invasion? — Brett

No... the premise of WWII was that if Hitler invaded Poland, then England and France would retaliate. Nobody really thought Hitler would actually invade Poland; but, nevertheless, it happened.

Are you suggesting the police and military perform the same purposes? — Brett

I am. It's the delicate balance of the military (and even police) to maintain peace through adherence to some policy or line of reasoning, at least in the majority of the West.

No... the premise of WWII was that if Hitler invaded Poland, then England and France would retaliate. Nobody really thought Hitler would actually invade Poland; but, nevertheless, it happened. — Wallows

Then the premise of being battle ready for defence doesn’t work. Not that Britain was battle ready by any means. Your example of Poland can be used in many military operations. Most military exercises are offensive. Though I can’t claim to be an expert. But I can’t go along with your thoughts. You haven’t really given me enough to think any differently.

I am. It's the delicate balance of the military (and even police) to maintain peace through adherence to some policy or line of reasoning, at least in the majority of the West. — Wallows

A peace keeping force? That’s pure politics.

Though I can’t claim to be an expert. But I can’t go along with your thoughts. You haven’t really given me enough to think any differently. — Brett

I'm sorry; but, are you being intentionally difficult?

Like, do we build hydrogen bombs to ensure that we are all dead because of (conspiratorially) generals and not politicians deciding when the time is right as to when to engage in conflict?

Why difficult?

A peace keeping force? That’s pure politics. — Brett

Good, and it's the job of generals to keep the generals of your adversary occupied with not going to war. Otherwise, I don't see any stable equilibria that could be maintained???

I don’t know enough about this to take it any further.

Why difficult? — Brett

Well, it doesn't make sense to say that we train people to go to war. Instead of preventing it by battle-readiness.

So we only train soldiers for defence, is that what you mean?

So we only train soldiers for defence, is that what you mean? — Brett

Nowadays, yes. (Some progress has been made in Western liberalist democracies as to the abhorrence of conflict or the limits of economics...)

Good, and it's the job of generals to keep the generals of your adversary occupied with not going to war. — Wallows

But it doesn’t work like that, does it? Otherwise there would be no war.

But it doesn’t work like that, does it? Otherwise there would be no war. — Brett

Yes, it does not work like that, inasmuch as there are no perfect circles out there in the world. But, that's the aspirational goal?

Nowadays? Let’s not just talk as if it’s only western democracies who might engage in war.

Aspirational has nothing to do with reality. Hitler was never going to sit down over a cup of tea anymore than Bin Laden was.

Nowadays? — Brett

Yes, nowadays, because WWIII wouldn't leave much to any party interested in it, rationally speaking.

Think of a conflict involving nuclear bombs. There's not much to "win" from such a conflict to any party.

Aspirational has nothing to do with reality. Hitler was never going to sit down over a cup of tea anymore than Bin Laden was. — Brett

I think both were not prima facie good examples of anyone in a Western democracy who would want to elect them as leaders.

Forget nuclear in this conversation. That’s just a means of smothering the conversation. We’re talking about military action to win not just as defence. That soldiers and generals want to fight. They want to win. To win the war requires many battles. Each battle has a different objective. How many of those objectives would be a posture of battle ready but no action? Not too many. I don’t know if it’s a military theory to wait for attack. It doesn’t seem that common. Your theory seems to be just scare off the enemy.

Forget nuclear in this conversation. That’s just a means of smothering the conversation. We’re talking about military action to win not just as defence. That soldiers and generals want to fight. They want to win. To win the war requires many battles. Each battle has a different objective. How many of those objectives would be a posture of battle ready but no action? Not too many. I don’t know if it’s a military theory to wait for attack. It doesn’t seem that common. Your theory seems to be just scare off the enemy. — Brett

We can't really forget nuclear, because it is the (deterrent) from full-blown conflict... nowadays. What prevents conflict, isn't the whim of some general or politician; but, the threat of the conflict itself and the losses incurred or instilled through deterrents.

What do you seem to be getting at Brett? That war is good or something?

We can't really forget nuclear, because it is the (deterrent) from full-blown conflict... nowadays — Wallows

But meanwhile real wars are going on.

What prevents conflict, isn't the whim of some general or politician; but, the threat of the conflict itself and the losses incurred or instilled through deterrents. — Wallows

But it doesn’t happen, does it? That has never stopped a war. You’re talking constantly in terms of defence. That’s fine, but the world doesn’t operate like that. Of course no one wants a war. But we get them and soldiers, not conscripts, are interested in it.

But meanwhile real wars are going on. — Brett

Ambiguous. What's a "real war"? That definition got subject to revision after 9/11/2001, right?

But it doesn’t happen, does it. That has never stopped a war. You’re talking constantly in terms of defence. That’s fine, but the world doesn’t operate like that. Of course no one wants a war. But we get them and soldiers, not conscripts, are interested in it. — Brett

Uhh... no. Soldiers aren't madmen and are trained to obey orders, not a personal whim.

not a personal whim. — Wallows

Not my words, yours.

Ambiguous. What's a "real war"? That's definition got subject to revision after 9/11/2001, right? — Wallows

As soon as someone starts on definitions I know the conversation’s over.