Time to get out your political science textbooks and history collections. Military governments: do they work? Consider three important examples: Sparta, China, and modern Pakistan.
Oh those- Yes, they used to work great: So did tribal warfare, the Crusades, slavery, empires; Clubs, swords, spears, guns, nukes; Warlords, kings, emperors, rogue presidents. At least, they worked great until their unpayable political debts came due. They all will recede into the past, inapplicable in solving the problems of an integrating world where information and power are decentralizing, and crippling blowback from military hubris stings with ever-increasing swiftness. How Ironic and sad that the US, "beacon of freedom & progress" is presently lagging behind the rest of the developed world in grasping this accelerating and overarching trend in human history. How harshly the lesson will be learned.
I would argue that the US is a military government. One of the highest percent of GDP on military spending in the world. Very low level of freedoms, liberty, and privacy in the G7. Military commander not always obeying the president (ie: JFK). Mandatory consciption when it is wanted. Large military presence in other nations. Martial law when things get sticky. And I'm sure many other analogous situations to openly military governments.
To be fair, the USA is a lot better than half the countries on this planet, in terms of personal safety, personal freedoms, health and education, et cetera.
Mr.G: " Military governments were more numerous in the recent past." We can get into nuances of levels of militarism, but I think that it is as plain as day that nations, especially the most developed/developing ones, have less prominent and demographically smaller warrior classes than past ones. The US even has a shirker/deserter for President. Mr. G, I respectfully submit that your map of colonial wreckage, and the chart that doesn't even plot militarism, cannot support your statement. Today's militaristic dinosaur nations are going broke. Big War has had its day. Good riddance. Blankc:"...the US is a military government" -consequently in decline.
uhh apart from the fact that they wore uniforms, could someone outline the other points of difference? degrees of difference? (civilian vs military) how does it affect the average joe? ?????
The question was "Military governments: do they work?". Adam will surely straighten us out, because he probably was one of the odd ones who sat up straight and paid attention in Ancient History (I was odd too, but uninterested). This question could effect the average Joe, because Ave.Joe will have less happiness living under a failed or obsolete government, but Joe's awareness could help him to recognize and avoid such a fate.
Despite what some seem to think the US is not a military state, although it does maintain a strong military. That statement would seem to require something to back it up, otherwise it is merely one opinion, and that from someone who is not an American. And MacArthur disagreed with Truman and got yanked. Most military systems of the ancient world enjoyed long longevity, whereas more recent attempts at military systems have fallen fairly quickly, such as the 12 year reign of the 1000 year Reich, and Japan's 16 year run. Yet ancient empires such as the Romans, Hittites, Persians, etc., all had reigns of several hundred years at least. Even up until the collapse of the British Empire following WWII did we see an empire enjoy a fairly long run. Maybe the question is not that whether they work, because they did work successfully for a long time, but rather why they no longer are successful (and when I say successful I don't mean successful for the people, I strictly mean successful in their longevity). It seems to me that ancient empires only fell when they finally succumbed to another military system, as in the case with the Romans to the Huns, the Mamlukes to the Ottoman Janissaries, etc, who then often assumed control of the empire, whereas in modern times they have been thrown down by coalitions of republics of free peoples. It seems less likely today for a military system to rise up, and even less likely for that system to be replaced by a similar system. I'm just running with this off the top of my head, but I think it is something to consider and maybe worth a discussion.
Sorta bogging down here without Adam holding Military History 101 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Teach us something, Mr. G I'll try and be less disruptive.
Despite your respect for Adam, Hype, his"history 101" was usually a personal spin on things, and hardly what one might consider authoritative. Unless of course his spin more or less coincides with yours, in which case you won't be taught anything except how to exercise bias. In addition, past military governments (as a vague rule, lets say anything beyond this and the last century) faced different political and social conditions and cannot be used as an indicator of how one might function well today. Sparta's militarily-based structure evolved immediately after the Messenian rebellion in 640 BC, when the Spartans were faced with a subject state outnumbering them by about 10 to 1, and their own armies largely decimated as a result of that rebellion... a tenuous position. Their solution was to create a tightly controlled military state in which everyone was a soldier, to at least some degree. Thus ensured that if faced with rebeillion again, they'd be better equipped to deal with it. Sparta became more a military state in reaction to circumstance than by force of arms, unlike most juntas we see now. I suppose it's possible to compare the modern Israel with Sparta in some ways, although Israel is technically not ruled by it's military, but in the main such a state doesn't exist right now, and likely couldn't.
Hey, I only gave him credit for 100- level stuff. Glad you livened it up. Israel is undoubtably the most militaristic modern regime, and let's hope that either historical comparisons don't apply to them, or they develop a more assimilative leadership before the umbilical cord or the host are lost.
It's idiotic statements like this that you make Hype "<FONT COLOR=BLACK><FONT SIZE=1><FONT FACE="TIMES NEW ROMAN"><I>Isreal is undoubtably the most militaristic modern regime</I></FONT></FONT></FONT>" that lead me to believe you have no clue about the world around you! With real examples of despotic military regimes like North Korea, Iraq, Cuba, China and the basket full in South American military puppets (Venezuela in the news now) you choose a nation that is actually ruled by it's civilian representatives! Man Hype, I swear I try to cut you slack on every post you peel off, but your impression of reality is so convoluted as to border dementia! Can I help you a little bit? A military regime would be a government controlled by it's military, understand? It's not a country that happens to be involved in a military conflict.. sheesh! I think your confusing Israeli's need for a large and active military with it's form of government? Hell, is that what your trying to say? If so, it's another subject... Oh, for the question.. "Military Governments, do they Work"? Do they work at what? They can work very well at enforcing laws and achieving order, it seems to be lacking in the personal freedoms area though. LOL Suggesting that the United States is a "military state" because of it's defense spending doesn't really warrent serious discussion.
I wanted Marquis to know I listen to him, but I should have qualified the statement much more. I don't think the despotic regimes are necessarily more militaristic- Thousands may be dressed up like soldiers, but don't have a fight in them. I was thinking less along the lines of military "regimes" but military mentalities and cultures. That's what I would have tried to convey if I had spent more time on it. But it was a weak post- glad you had fun with it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Pardon my observation that you chose your name well, hype. I am amused. You've extrapolated and extracted from a simple pair of links within a brief paraphrasing of statisical fact presented therein apparently deep insights into Mr. G's socio-political motivations and leanings on the matter of military governance. I'm amused, primarily because I don't recognize myself in your characterizations of me within this thread. I'm amused, because I expect you'll next tell me I'm out of touch with my internal dialogue. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
