A much more lucid way to to define nationhood, or at least the purpose thereof, is found in C.S. Lewis' writings:
[W]e must say that the sun looks down on nothing half so good as a household laughing together over a meal, or two friends talking over a pint of beer, or a man alone reading a book that interests him; and that all economies, politics, laws, armies, and institutions, save insofar as they prolong and multiply such scenes, are a mere plowing of the sand and sowing the ocean, a meaningless vanity and vexation of spirit.We know intuitively that in order for people to be happy, they need to satisfy other needs first. Maslow's Hierarchy categorizes them nicely: first physiological needs like food and shelter, then personal needs like companionship and belonging, then finally metaphysical needs like self-actualization and morality. That final set of needs is what C.S. Lewis correctly identifies as the pinnacle of human life, from whence spring the drive to create great works of art and music, the drive to dare great deeds and perform feats of service and compassion. And tellingly we tend to judge cultures (including our own) by such achievements. We Americans, for example, take pride in our achievements in the Second World War, where at great sacrifice and individual risk we helped defeat ruthless, unjust, and evil totalitarian states. Other cultures take justifiable pride in their own art, science, or historical achievements.
Yet with C.S. Lewis we must also acknowledge that we can only reach our pinnacle if lower-order needs are met: personal safety and sustenance, for example. Sadly, humans and the communities they form can be selfish, which usually results in someone taking an item of value from another, often by violence. Whether it is a schoolyard bully exhorting lunch money or Nazi Germany's desire for liebensraum at the expense of the Soviet Union, it is the same ugly story. Furthermore, there is a darkness to the human heart that defies normal comprehension, a darkness manifested in events like the Holocaust, or the genocide in Rwanda, or (on a smaller level) the rampage of a serial killer or school shooter. In communities which are constantly living at the mercy of threatening or violent neighboring communities, fulfilling those "high-order needs" is prevented by the struggle to survive and protect loved ones and important possessions, like homes and businesses. So within our communities and nations we have developed governments and institutions for preventing intimidation and violence. One such institution is the Military.
The chief purpose of a Military is to protect the sovereign land and people of a nation. It does so by providing a credible threat of violence to those who would violate the nation, and if necessary by executing violence on those who threaten it. Because threats in this modern age come in sophisticated and flexible forms, and threaten from all environments (land, sea, and air), we must maintain at least a comprable level of sophistication and flexibility in our own Military, which requires a lot of support.
A military term much in vogue is "force-multiplier," which is a label applied to anything that increases the combat power of a unit beyond its "nominal" amount. It's a vague term, because the "nominal" combat power of a platoon might simply be the combined strength, aggressiveness, and will to win of 42 young men. In that case, rifles are a combat multiplier. However, the term is often applied to things like esprit de corps and advanced weapons. The former is a combat multiplier that is been used by Militaries since war began. It refers to tangible and proven professionalism, discipline, loyalty, and a belief in the purpose of the unit. The success of Roman Legionaries has been historically attributed to their unit cohesion, experience, and dedication to warfare--they had more esprit de corps than any other Military they fought. Modern militaries develop esprit de corps through challenging training designed to force members to work together and rely on each other (e.g. "boot camp"), rigorous training in the actual conduct of fighting (e.g. marksmanship and "war games" training) and demanding adherence to "core values" such as the Navy and Marine Corps' honor, courage, and commitment. But alone esprit de corps cannot guarantee a military can fulfill its mission, as was demonstrated in 1939 by the utter defeat of superbly trained and motivated Polish Cavalry in the face of Nazi Panzers. The technological gap was too wide. No matter how motivated or skilled he is, a man who proverbially brings a knife to a gun fight will probably be killed.
Technology is simply a subset of the support structure which enables a military to fight. Obviously, if a nation expects their military to fight well for them, the nation must provide it simple things like sustenance, recompense for the service, and ideological support. In addition to those things, the nation must also provide weapons. In the middle ages, those weapons were swords and spears provided by blacksmiths, who were in turn furnished with iron ore provided by miners. But today the threat is sophisticated and flexible, and consists of advanced weapons systems like tanks, cruise missiles, and airplanes--which must be countered with like weaponry. Therefore, a to ensure its protection a nation must commit the industrial resources to provide and maintain a modern military. This requires steel, rubber, and other industrial supplies for the building of military equipment, electronics to operate and control advanced weapons (such as the AEGIS missile defense system), money to operate and maintain the equipment for training purposes, and provision for research and development. This conglomeration of industrial, financial, and military resources is called "The Military-Industrial Complex."
Certainly the necessity of creating a Military capable of presenting a sufficiently credible threat has made the Military-Industrial Complex a comparatively large percentage of our own national endeavor. As such, the parties involved (from corporations to the Military organizations themselves) have been able to wield increasing amounts of influence in the halls of our Government. There are some segments of society that have resented and still resent this trend since the first great rise in influence of the Military-Industrial Complex in the aftermath of World War II, questioning whether the national resources devoted to supporting our large modern military might not be excessive, and better used in bettering the fabric of society, such as by offering better education or more medical care. In his 1960 Farewell Speech, President Eisenhower uttered a warning: "[W]e must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
There are many examples, both apocryphal and documented, of such "misplaced power." The congressmen who control military spending, the contractors who befriend such congressmen to ensure that defense dollars are paid to their corporations, and the Military services themselves have all at times irresponsibly used our national resources. This justifiably angers those who see a need for better infrastructure such as schools and hospitals, or simply for a government that demands less from its citizens. "Misplaced Power" in the hands of the Military-Industrial Complex is particularly frustrating in times of financial difficulty.
Yet though instances of "misplaced power" demand renewed focus on Military oversight (after all, our forefathers subjected the Miltary establishment to civilian masters for a reason), they should not result in the drastic cuts so often proposed. While our society might benefit greatly from diverting resources from the Military and associated industries toward endeavors like education and medical care, it cannot be denied that such endeavors are higher-order needs, and a nation cannot focus on them if it is occupied with survival. The cure for cancer is not much of a concern when people more often die from bullets.
Now manifestly our nation is not under much of a threat--but the possibility of such a threat exists. There are other powerful nations in the world with vibrant, advanced technology and industry and sufficient population to logistically and realistically engage in total war. While such nations exist, there is an imperative to have a Military capable of handling the threat they could pose. To do anything less is to gamble very survival on convenience. A similar criticism is that too many resources are dedicated to supporting the Military when in a time of peace. In such times, the argument goes, a less robust military is required, and the resources thereby saved might be put to a nobler use. But again it is an imprudent nation that gambles its safety on the whim of its neighbors, for they may suddenly decide for expediency rather than peace or morality and simply take what they want, if they can.
There is yet another reason besides current safety that a significant military draw-down is unwise. For just as the skills required to make swords were perishable if not taught to succeeding blacksmiths on down the generations (along with the skills required for mining), the vast and intricate knowledge required to produce today's advanced weapons is perishable. That knowledge can only be maintained fully through execution, or namely in the continued production of such weapons ("book-learning" alone leaves proven gaps). Industrial production is the result of much labor and planning: the very manufacturing machines and processes that produce advanced weaponry at any kind of scale must themselves be designed and built. The supply lines and economic relationships that provide the steel, manufacture the rubber and fiberglass, and supply the electrical components and computer chips to the actual assembly lines must be established and negotiated. Above all, the resident intelligence in the defense industry that spends its time designing the best equipment for the Military and constantly improving it to meet advances from threat militaries is something that grows organically as systems are built, tested, and utilized. To halt even a large portion of that cold is to lose it forever--it will never be recovered as it was, and if the nation has need of it in the future (such as war might require), it must rebuild all that engineering prowess, all those business relationships, and all that industrial capability from scratch, and at ruinous cost. An example of this was found during the rapid American mobilization following her entrance into the First World War, when for a while there were so few rifles that entire Army units were sent to France without ever having been trained.
While it is indeed a gamble to withdraw a nation's support for it's Military, it also has a negative effect on the fabric of the nation as a whole. The economic and industrial relationships begotten by the Military-Industrial Complex employ many civilians. The process of developing and building advanced military equipment begets advanced technologies with civilian (commercial and industrial) applications. And in no small way do the members of a Military so supported and maintained contribute to society.
In the first place, they fight and will die for it. They will risk grave danger for the opportunity to fight and die for it. Seafaring and Aviation remain profoundly dangerous occupations, as seen by the recent crash of a F/A-18 Hornet into a neighborhood of San Diego or the recent shipboard fire on the USS George Washington. Yet the members of our military volunteer for such danger. They serve in hostile environments, work long hours in substandard spaces, and endure training hardships that cannot be legally wrought upon prisoners. They do all of this for mediocre pay, at best, and a lifestyle that all but denies them the abilitity to start or participate in a family. Their spouses, often left alone for months at a time, must raise children and keep house alone, all while perhaps worrying for the safety of their loved one. All this is chiefly the result of esprit de corps, and it is sad but virtuous. The men and women a Military produces are more often diligent, thrifty, and honorable than average. They are no strangers to hard work and tough jobs, and participate in the processes of democracy in greater percentages than the rest of the population. They learn not only the difficult skills of their Military trade, but also the social skills required for a close community. They learn teamwork and self-discipline. And in their conspicuous display of these virtues in their communities, the members of the military may inspire their fellow citizens.
These virtues (these virtuous men and women) a Military gives its nation are arguably the result more of esprit de corps than national resource support. But it is not so. Without the aircraft, ships, tanks, rifles, ammunition, ordnance and host of other gear meant solely for training at it's disposal--namely, the equipment provided by the Military-Industrial Complex--the institution of the Military could not make the sacrifices necessary in times of peace possible. When an infantryman leaves his home and family for a week in the woods, training, that builds esprit de corps and military virtue. When a ship goes underway for a month, training, its crew suffers a similar sacrifice. When an aviation squadron deploys halfway around the world simply to demonstrate its own nation's commitment to an allied country, the sacrifice is proportionally greater. Yet without actual war to execute, this is the only adversity a Military can create to achieve esprit de corps. And it is therefore necessary. Even in times of peace, the Military-Industrial Complex helps support everything positive a Military can provide it's citizenry.
There are few former soldiers who become great artists or writers or engineers (though they do exist). But a Military, and the support structure required for it's maintenance, is necessary to the survival, growth, and essential fabric--social and economic--of a nation. However expensive this all may be, it must not be neglected at the risk of becoming the victim of some more powerful neighbor. While it is reasonable to scale back the military to a certain degree, it must be done cautiously and in the full knowledge that the support of engineering and industry are essential. Inasmuch as we wish to remain a great nation, we cannot afford to let languish an institution that contributes so much positive to our society.
