 | This article has multiple issues. Please helpimprove it or discuss these issues on thetalk page.(Learn how and when to remove these messages) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
|
Militarization,ormilitarisation, is the process by which asociety organizes itself formilitary conflict andviolence. It is related tomilitarism, which is anideology that reflects the level of militarization of astate. The process of militarization involves many interrelated aspects that encompass all levels of society.
.jpg)
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 withCanada, acountry may have a relatively small military and a low level of armament. However, inIsrael, the supposed threat of attack from neighbouring countries means that the armed forces and defense have a high profile and are given significant funding and personnel.
This threat may involve the:
Militaristic ideas are referred to within civilian contexts. Thewar on poverty declared byPresidentLyndon B. Johnson, and thewar on drugs declared 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. 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.
Increasingly, Christian evangelical prayer has taken on militaristic forms and language.[2]Spiritual warfare may 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 inmilitaristic imagery, 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 aggressivemissionary expansion conducted against the backdrop of theVietnam War in 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 women and 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 troops car-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 (theNazi leaders andSS units responsible for theHolocaust).
Furthermore, the military can interfere with politics under democratic regimes. Between 2018 and 2020 in Brazil, the proportion of retired military personnel occupying significant positions in the national government rose to 6.5% of all first-ranked appointed officials, representing a threefold increase compared to the prior administration.[9]
Structural organization is another process of militarization. BeforeWorld War II (1939–1945), theUnited States experienced 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 1947 restructured both civilian and militaryleadership structures, establishing the Department of Defense and theNational Security Council. The Act also created permanent intelligence structures (theCIA et 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 entering business or politics may import military mindsets and jargon into their new environments – thus there is the popularity ofadvertising campaigns, salesbreak-throughs and election victories (even ifPyrrhic ones).
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.[10]
Racial interactions between society and the military:
Eleanor Roosevelt said "civil rights [is] an international question. . . [that] may decide whether Democracy or Communism wins out in the world."[12] and this sort offalse dichotomy was continued further throughout theMcCarthy era and theCold War in general.
.jpg)
The militarization of police involves the use ofmilitary equipment andtactics bylaw enforcement officers. This includes the use ofarmored personnel carriers,assault rifles,submachine guns,flashbang grenades,[13][14]grenade launchers,[15]sniper rifles,Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams.[16][17] The militarization of law enforcement is also associated withintelligence agency-style information gathering aimed at the public andpolitical activists,[18][19] and a more aggressive style oflaw enforcement.[20][21] Criminal justice professor Peter Kraska has defined militarization of law enforcement as "the process wherebycivilianpolice increasingly draw from, and pattern themselves around, the tenets ofmilitarism and the military model."[22]
Observers have noted the militarizing of the policing ofprotests.[23][24] Since the 1970s,riot police have fired at protesters using guns withrubber bullets orplastic bullets.[25]Tear gas, which was developed forriot control in 1919, is widely used against protesters in the 2000s. The use of tear gas inwarfare is prohibited by various international treaties[26] that most states have signed; however, its law enforcement ormilitary use fordomestic or non-combat situations 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 Institute and the left-of-centerAmerican Civil Liberties Union voicing criticisms of the practice. TheFraternal Order of Police has 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.
