Who Gets To Save The World?

There are those that believe that US military might acts as a shield against wanton global chaos. Without the US military’s global presence – the United States has in excess of 700 military bases around the world – many believe that democracy, global economic stability, and even civilization itself would be seriously threatened.

Since the end of the Second World War, the United States has been viewed as the world’s foremost power for ‘good’, though during the decades that would follow it would commit crimes and atrocities aplenty, most of which were passed off as necessity at the time – that is, if they were even publicly revealed. That is the position enjoyed by a global military super power – the ability to hypocritically become that which one claims to struggle against in an attempt to ensure that ‘good’ prevails.

History is replete with examples of ‘just ideologies’ that have been abused to ensure military dominance despite the fact that such abuses have been routinely passed off as preventative necessity. Of course, history is often overlooked in the present, which is the fundamental reason why the same mistakes are tolerated time and again. While we justify our actions and beliefs based on present circumstances, the reality remains that history provides example after example of how the abuse of power has been used to first safeguard the purity of ideologies and then warp them to ultimately produce that which was initially opposed. In almost ever instance, it is from within noble social concepts that their doom is written. Of course, that is the last place that anyone looks for danger, which is why such corruptions almost always occur.

We live in an era which is, in truth, no different than any other in most ways. The belief that weapons ensure the survival of what that which we deem just speaks to its weakness. Because, in bitterly plain language, if an idea is that good then it needn’t be promoted with weapons of war to ensure either its safety nor its progression. Only the advancement of power is achieved through the application of military significance, not the ideals that it claims to defend. And if the promotion of an idea requires force to ‘enlighten’ others to its ‘truth’, then it is not a truly sound one.

Who, then, gets to save the world? The precedent of the sword and rifle, the cannon and bomb have only ever produced the belief that through their possession ideological protectionism is assured. But what has little transpired in history is the organic growth of an idea that forgoes the need for force to be included as one of its essentials. The removal of threat introduces the possibility of progression, not the other way around.

To many that might seem naively idealistic and entirely unrealistic. To that I can only respond by saying – show me an example to the contrary that has not caused incalculable suffering and I will gladly concede the point.