posted on Mar, 19 2017 @ 08:15 PM
We need to find a proper role for our military.
Just "being militarily strong" isn't enough. Think of a village community. Suppose there is one guy in that community who is bigger
than most, strong, fit, and knows martial arts.
We don't automatically hate, nor love him. It all depends on what he does with that strength.
Lets' go through his options:
1) - Do nothing. Ever. (Take a vow of pacifism and never use any of it.)
We won't love him for doing that. We might even resent him, like if he stands by and lets a woman get violated because he is too dedicated to
his pacifism and pure apathy to help anyone.
2) - Bully People.
Make himself rich by shaking down local businesses. Take anything he wants from anyone he wants any time he wants.
3) - Be the sheriff.
American politics keeps insisting we are not the "World Police". But what if this guy chooses to be accept that role?
4) - Be a vigilante.
Let the town elect someone else to be sheriff. Then continually undermine that guy by taking the law into his own hands whenever he sees
something happening that he doesn't approve of. (Which could include saving that woman who was going to be attacked in option 1)
5) - Rule the place.
Take over the government of the town. Make his own rules, and force everyone to obey them. After all, there is nobody to oppose him. He can
be king, and never bother to hold any elections.
If they don't like it, he can go into their homes and restructure their family arrangement to resemble his own family. (Nation build, making other
nations work like ours!!)
6) - Set up a puppet ruler.
He can be the muscle, and let someone else be the brains. Or he can be the brains and the muscle, and let the other person be the pretty face.
My point is: the question of whether to be militaristic is incredibly vague. There are so many different versions of it, each of us who
answer will likely be envisioning our own version of what it means.