Talk:The Soldier and the State
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Soldier and the State article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This article needs work
editIt shouldn't be a long summery of the work. It should provide a summery, but than provide why this is important. There is nothing here that shows the importance of the book.
the article is a stub, needs more work
editin his book samuel huntington argues to make a distinction between the role and the nature of the military (eg. army). that is the military has its own special nature which is not always corresponding to the role the military plays in a given state. he says there is a true form of military, which is defined by professionalism, its first historical example being the army of Prussia.
he says that a military is/has to be/ a profesional force led by commanders that are trained in the military sciences and are appointed from within the ranks, as opposed to pre-napoleonian and pre-prussian aristocratic build-ups. then he progresses to show, how such a "true" military is superior compared to other types. he defines a "military mindset" as being pessimistic, eg: a belief in inevitability of armed conflicts, hence a need to have a strong military force and a conservativeness, eg: the urge to put up as much preparations and amass as much force-contributing factors as possible, for the consequences of losing are so high, that according to huntington, the military mind-set never thinks it has made enough preparations to ensure victory in an armed conflict - hence a certain kind of "pacifism": evade the onset of an armed conflict as long as there seems to be a chance to achieve a better ballance of forces - to prepare and equip one's own army better for the fight (which ultimately is inevitable since human nature is destined so that it ends up in use of force/ a violent conflict sooner or later).
Huntington also cites some examples of how warmondgering "can never be attributed to real professioanal military men - but instead to either politicians, or military leaders who werent typically trained and raised in a military education system and environment, but are rather outsiders to the system of the military".
as for the idea of civil control - if my memories are reliable - huntington says the military must be subject to the elected political leadership of the state, both in what resources it can have and in what goals it has to achieve, while at the same time the military must be left to decide in its own ranks how those resources are used to achieve the goals defined by the civilian body of control.
as to the importance of the book it clearly stems from its authors later notoriety for the "clash of civilizations".
what i really miss from the article, is an analysis/criticism, or at least an influences- section. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC).
stub, a really bad one at that
editsince the book is at least 20 yers old now - and highly influential (and perhaps) controversial since its publication, it is shocking that all the article has to say ABOUT this work is some very pale parrotting of its contents.
just for beginning heres a review: https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8593&context=ylj