The Real Mission of A Military?

[Wes]

The following was posted on a mailing list I'm on a while back, and I thought it was interesting. I'm not sure of the original author.

The primary mission of military forces is to march in victory parades.
Roll of drum and shrill of pipe and captured battle standards are the
actual coinage of power, what makes theoretical authority real. Forces
and weapons should be configured accordingly - for warships, giltwork,
carving, pennants, etc., to maximize the impression of might and grandeur.

Some of you, from the narrow perspective of 20th-21st century
functionalism, are muttering something about combatworthiness. Of
course that is a necessary design feature, since a precondition of
victory parades is victories. Combat power is like seakeeping ability
- necessary for a ship to perform its mission, but not to be mistaken
FOR the mission.

A simplistic example. Suppose (ignoring all details of specific
mission capabilities) that aircraft carriers and nuclear subs have
equivalent combat power. The carrier is the superior weapon, because
it is a far better showboat, the primary strategic mission.

Oh, I'm not saying subs don't have a useful mission! I'm saying that
the fundamental mission of a navy or other military is political, and
showboating is an important part of that mission. In fact, in grand
strategic context, fighting is often what you fall back on if
showboating fails.

There's also a quite separate dimension to decorating military
hardware such as warships - if the gummint doesn't decorate them the
crews will, if permitted. Carving cavorting goddesses on a 17th c.
ship may have just been their version of bomber nose art.

Thoughts?

 

[Nashoba]

Sadly to a certain degree there is some sense to this. Almost every government at one time of another has used a display of its military to bring about a desired goal. Here are few popular terms that all convey this principle.

Saber rattling
A flamboyant display of military power; also, aggressive blustering. For example, There had been a great deal of saber rattling between the two nations but hostilities had never broken out. This term, originating about 1920 and alluding to an officer indicating he would draw his saber, at first referred to threatening military force.

Show of Force
Shows of force have historically been undertaken mostly by a military actor unwilling to engage in all-out hostilities, but fearing to 'lose face' (i.e. to appear weak). By performing a carefully calculated provocation, the opponent is to be shown that violent confrontation remains an option, and that there will be no (or no further) backing off on the principle the show of force is to defend. Shows of force may be actual military operations, but in times of official peace, they may also be limited to military exercises.

Shows of force may also be executed by police forces and other armed, non-military groups.

Gunboat diplomacy
Diplomacy involving intimidation by threat or use of military force

 

[Wanderer]

I would say that this is the view of a politician or of a person outside the military looking in. To the person that's in the military the spit shined shoes and well pressed uniform only really comes out when a inspection from the higher ups comes through or when they're going to be in the public eye. That's not to say that their appearance is less then presentable at other times, but the really good looking gear is saved for those occasions for when it's appropriate. This is because a civilian doesn't really understand the military usually unless they have actually been around real military people when they are doing what they do. So the dog and pony show is not the real mission of the military, but it's what allows the military to show the rest of the country why they really need them.

It IS important, but for political and PR reasons. In short it is a way to help the military do their real job which is to defend their country and it's interests.

 

[Sean_ODuibher]

While Nashoba and Wanderer both make good points, I think they’re missing the larger idea of what this guy is saying. It’s not that military might has to be displayed aggressively or even actively or that any display needs to be ultra glamorous. Rather, it is that in the minds of your enemies, allies, whoever, there is a segment of your country that is absolutely dedicated to completely eliminating whatever threat they are directed at. And I have to say that I completely agree. This is why I’ve always thought the world of Star Trek is really unbelievable. Starfleet’s main mission is to explore peacefully. To my mind this is just not a credible threat. I mean, why would a Romulan or Klingon or the Dominion or whoever take the federation seriously? That’s why I like Deep Space 9 and especially the USS Defiant. In the series, Starfleet really becomes a military, with warfighting as their main goal. And the Defiant is designed exclusively to be a warship, with any other peaceful missions as a secondary factors.

And this is all why we can see the difference in interventions in the contemporary world. No one is scared of UN peacekeepers. When they went into Rwanda or wherever else, no one shaped up because it’s common knowledge that peacekeepers aren’t going to fight. But if you hear NATO is going to come in, or worse the U.S. military all by itself, you know things are getting serious, because they are going to fight, and they are going to fight until they are told to stop.

 

[Dragonnova]

As Max Brooks pointed out in World War Z, war is not about hurting or killing the other side. It's about fear. It's about intimidating the other side enough for them to call it a day. See 'Shock and Awe'.

 

[Zack]

War is politics conducted through other means.

Or perhaps Politics is war conducted through other means.

The statement provided is pointless internet trolling with no value other than to cause people to argue about it on the internet. It boils what could be a reasonable topic of conversation on the position of military force in modern life down to something that is designed just to get under someone's skin and make them choose a side.

 

[Revolver]

It reminds me of the "Rules of Conflict" for the US Air Force from this site: http://humour.200ok.com.au/rules-of-con ... style.html


1. Have a cocktail.
2. Adjust temperature on air conditioner.
3. See what's on HBO.
4. Ask "what is a gunfight?"
5. Request more funding from Congress with a "killer" Power Point presentation.
6. Wine & dine 'key' Congressmen, invite DOD & defense industry executives.
7. Receive funding, set up new command and assemble assets.
8. Declare the assets "strategic" and never deploy them operationally.
9. Hurry to make 13:45 tee time.
10. Make sure the base is as far as possible from the conflict but close enough to have tax exemption.

Just another one of those Humor in Truth sort of things.

 

[Sean_ODuibher]

Uso: You are over-simplifying Clausewitz. This is the best official explanation I’ve been able to find, from a strategy professor at the National War College (article).

One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of politics," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation.

Moreover, I don’t think this is either trolling or oversimplification. The only way you are going to have an effective military, that can successfully serve as a deterrent to all threats, not just the least serious, is if its only purpose is, when “let off the leash” as it were, to utterly defeat the enemy.

 

[Wes]

I would have to agree that a military's primary mission is deterrence...a military may not always be at war but they are always supposed to be respected by other countries.

I guess, in summary, that to maximize its effectiveness, a military needs to be both visible (the military should look cool and badass) and credible (well-trained and armed, preferably with a history of success). Being effective in military operations is a vital part of being a deterrent...and being intimidating can help with operations (psyops, sort of) so each function of a military supports the other.

 

[Fay]

The military has several missions: deterrence, defense, offense, etc. However, the military is split up to actually commit to these missions.

Example: The Navy takes on the tasks of the open seas, coastal waters, etc. Thus, the Navy itself is split into many smaller groups. Pilots use air power to complete missions, submariners are for stealth and nuclear deterrence, SEALs have ground missions, etc etc etc.

 

[Ira]

To protect the state from its enemies.

 

[Legix]

This thread really strikes a note with me because the Brolt emphasize this within the aspects of their medieval inspiration. Heraldry and the presence of elites on a battlefield is risky/unnecessary, but they employ it because there's nothing like the sight (at least to a Brolt) of a Broltesean Knight in full Broltese Power Armor landing within a city, wielding a blade and shield in either hand. In short, their military isn't exactly efficient in battle because of their medieval tendencies (board enemy ships/fly in close for maximum effect) but it's nothing short of awe-inspiring to their own people when their soldiers and machinery arrives. A military should inspire awe in foes and friend alike, for sure, and as long as there's hope and belief behind it a military can be fighting for long periods.

TLDR: you might have a strong army, but if you have any problems and the military doesn't inspire hope, it fails. The USA had a vastly powerful army when we fought in Korea and Vietnam, but once the people and our enemies stopped trusting/fearing them we had already lost the war. Obviously other factors exist, but the faith an army inspires to fight/support the state is definitely a key part of them.