Militarization,ormilitarisation,is the process by which asocietyorganizes itself formilitaryconflict andviolence.It is related tomilitarism,which is anideologythat reflects the level of militarization of astate.The process of militarization involves many interrelated aspects that encompass all levels of society.
The perceived level of threat influences what potential for violence or warfare the state must achieve to assure itself an acceptable level of security. When the perceived level of threat is low, as with Canada, a country may have a relatively small military and level of armament. However, in Israel, the threat of attack from neighbouring countries means that the armed forces and defense have a high profile and are given significant funding and personnel.
TheGCCcontinues fortifyingKuwaitfor a potentialIraq war,with theUAEoffloading aBMP-3tank at a Kuwaiti port from a landing craft.Threats to state interests, such as political control of an oil-rich region, or preventing the spread of a conflicting ideology (e.g., the U.S.'s use ofCIAinterventions to undermine variouscommunistgovernments)
Militaristic ideas are referred to within civilian contexts. TheWar on Povertydeclared byPresidentLyndon B. Johnson,and theWar on drugsdeclared by PresidentRichard Nixon,are rhetorical wars. They are not declared against a concrete, military enemy which can be defeated, but are symbolic of the amount of effort, sacrifice, and dedication which needs to be applied to the issue. They may also be a means of consolidatingexecutive power,because war implies emergency powers for the executive branch which are normally reserved for the legislature. As well, politicians have invoked militaristic ideas with rhetorical wars on other social issues. Some governments draw on militaristic imagery when they appoint "task forces" of bureaucrats to address pressing political or social issues.
Militarization has been used as a strategy for boosting a state's economy, by creating jobs and increasing industrial production. This was part ofAdolf Hitler's plan to revive the German economy after the devastation it suffered after theFirst World War.
Increasingly, Christian evangelical prayer has taken on militaristic forms and language.[2]Spiritual warfaremay involve forms of prayer spoken in militarized discourse. Its adherents, sometimes referring to themselves as "prayer warriors",wage" spiritual battle "on a" prayer battlefield ". Spiritual warfare is the latest iteration in a long-standing partnership between religious organizations and militarization, two spheres that religion scholar Elizabeth A. McAlister argues are rarely considered together, although aggressive forms of prayer have long been used to further the aims of expanding Christian influence through a variety of conversion tactics.[2]These tactics have begun being articulated inmilitaristicimagery, using terms such as "enlist, rally, advance and blitz". Major moments of increased political militarization have occurred concurrently with the growth of prominence of militaristic imagery in many evangelical communities, such as the evangelical engagement in a militarized project of aggressivemissionaryexpansion conducted against the backdrop of theVietnam Warin the 1970s.[2]
The military also has a role in defining gender identities. War movies (i.e.Rambo) associate the cultural identities of masculinity with warriors.[3]Representations of Vietnam in popular culture display the male body as a weapon of war and contribute to ideals of masculinity in American culture.[4][5]Military prowess has been crucial to understandings of contemporary masculinity in European and American culture.[6]DuringWorld War I,soldiers who experienced shell-shock were seen[by whom?]as failures of masculinity, unable to withstand war as the ultimate task of manliness.[7]The maintenance of military systems relies on ideas about men and manliness as well as ideas about women and femininity, including notions offallen womenand patriotic motherhood.[8]
Women have been mobilized during times of war to perform tasks seen as incompatible with men's roles in combat, including cooking, laundry, and nursing.[8]Women have also been seen as necessary for servicing male soldiers' sexual needs throughprostitution.[8]For example, during theVietnam War,Vietnamese women who worked as prostitutes were allowed on US bases as local national Jabaits.[8]
The role and image of the military within a society is another aspect of militarization. At differing times and places in history, soldiers have been viewed as respectable, honoured individuals (for example, this was the reputation of Allied soldiers who liberated the Nazi-occupied Netherlands in WWII, or the view of Americans and Canadians who placedsupport our troopscar-magnets on their vehicles during thewar on terror). Military figures can become heroes (for example, the Finnish people's view of the Finnish sniper nicknamed"White Death",who killed many Russian invaders). Alternatively, one can brand soldiers as "baby killers" (as a few U.S. anti-war activists did during and after theVietnam War) or aswar criminals(theNazileaders andSSunits responsible for theHolocaust).
Structural organization is another process of militarization. BeforeWorld War II(1939–1945), theUnited Statesexperienced a post-war reduction of forces after major conflicts, reflecting American suspicion of large standing armies. After World War II, not only was the army maintained, but theNational Security Act of 1947restructured both civilian and militaryleadershipstructures, establishing theDepartment of Defenseand theNational Security Council.The Act also created permanent intelligence structures (theCIAet al.) within the United States government for the first time, reflecting the civilian government's perception of a need for previously military-based intelligence to be incorporated into the structure of the civilian state.
Ex-soldiers enteringbusinessor politics may import military mindsets and jargon into their new environments – thus there is the popularity ofadvertising campaigns,salesbreak-throughsand election victories (even ifPyrrhicones).
How citizenship is tied to military service plays an important role in establishing civil–military relations. Countries with volunteer-based military service have a different mindset from those with universal conscription. In some countries, men must have served with the military to be considered citizens.[citation needed]Compare historical Prussia (where every male was required to serve, and service was a requirement of citizenship[citation needed]) to post-Vietnam America's all-volunteer army. In 2016 inIsrael,military service is mandatory. This develops a society where almost all people have served in the armed forces.[9]
Racial interactions between society and the military:
During imperial Germany, military service was a requirement of citizenship, but Jews and other foreigners were not allowed to serve in the military.[10]
During Nazi Germany'sHolocaust,SSunits committed war crimes and crimes against humanity on a massive scale, including executing millions of civilians.
In the United States, beyond theCivil War,military service was a way for blacks to serve the country, and later appeal for equal citizenship during World War II. The military was one of the first national institutions to be integrated. In 1948,President Harry S. TrumanissuedExecutive Order 9981establishing equality within the armed services. The military was also a tool of integration. In 1957, PresidentDwight Eisenhowersent troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to desegregate a school after theBrown v. BoardSupreme Court decision in 1954. (See also MacGregor, 1985.)
Improved race relations was seen as a national security issue during the Cold War. Communist propaganda cited American racism as a major flaw, and America wanted to improve its image to third-world countries which might be susceptible to Communism.
Eleanor Rooseveltsaid "civil rights [is] an international question... [that] may decide whether Democracy or Communism wins out in the world."[11]and this sort offalse dichotomywas continued further throughout theMcCarthy eraand theCold Warin general.
The military also serves as a means of social restructuring. Lower classes could gain status and mobility within the military, at least afterlevée en masseafter theFrench Revolution.Also, the officer corps became open to the middle class, although it was once reserved only for nobility. In Britain, becoming a military officer was an expectation for 'second sons' who were to gain no inheritance; the role of officer was assumed to maintain their noble class. In the United States, military service has been/is advertised as a means for lower-class people to receive training and experience that they would not normally receive, propelling them to higher incomes and higher positions in society. Joining the military has enabled many people from lower socioeconomic demographics to receive college education and training. As well, a number of positions in the military involve transferable skills that can be used in the regular labor market after an individual is discharged (e.g., pilot, air traffic controller, mechanic).
Observers have noted the militarizing of the policing ofprotests.[22][23]Since the 1970s,riot policehave fired at protesters using guns withrubber bulletsorplastic bullets.[24]Tear gas,which was developed forriot controlin 1919, is widely used against protesters in the 2000s. The use of tear gas inwarfareis prohibited by various international treaties[25]that most states have signed; however, its law enforcement ormilitaryuse fordomesticor non-combatsituations is permitted.
Concerns about the militarization of police have been raised by both ends of the political spectrum in theUnited States,with both the right-of-center/libertarianCato Instituteand the left-of-centerAmerican Civil Liberties Unionvoicing criticisms of the practice. TheFraternal Order of Policehas spoken out in favor of equipping law enforcement officers with military equipment, on the grounds that it increases the officers' safety and enables them to protect civilians.
^The flash from a flashbang grenade detonation momentarily activates allphotoreceptor cellsin theeye,making vision impossible for approximately five seconds, until the eye restores itself to its normal, unstimulated state. The loud blast is meant to cause temporary loss of hearing, and also disturbs thefluid in the ear,causing loss of balance. The concussive blast of the detonation can still injure, and the heat created can ignite flammable materials.
^Texas Rangers, Department of Public Safety,Branch Davidian Evidence,Investigative Report No. 1, September 1999; Investigative Report No. 2, January 2000 (PDFs available at Texas Rangers website). The Rangers found that the FBI used grenade launchers to fire two 40 mm M651 grenades. The Army considers the M651 a pyrotechnic device and that it is known to cause fires. The Army Tech Manual for the M651 warns that it can penetrate 3/4 "plywood at 200 meters and" projectile may explode upon target impact. "During inventory of the Waco evidence the Texas Rangers also found flashbang grenades.
