Military Strength and Society
For much of military history the armed forces were considered to be for use by the heads of their societies, until recently, the crowned heads of states. In a democracy or other political system run in the public interest, it is a public force.
The relationship between the military and the society it serves is a complicated and ever-evolving one. Much depends on the nature of the society itself and whether it sees the military as important, as for example in time of threat or war, or a burdensome expense typified by defence cuts in time of peace.
These relationships are seen from the perspective of political-military relations, the military-industrial complex mentioned above, and the socio-military relationship. The last can be divided between those segments of society that offer support for the military, those who voice opposition to the military, the voluntary and involuntary civilians in the military forces, the populations of civilians in a combat zone, and of course the military's self-perception.
Militaries often function as societies within societies, by having their own military communities, economies, education, medicine and other aspects of a functioning civilian society. Although a "military" is not limited to nations in of itself as many private military companies (or PMC's) can be used or "hired" by organisations and figures as security, escort, or other means of protection where police, agencies, or militaries are absent or not trusted.
Read more about this topic: Military
Famous quotes containing the words military, strength and/or society:
“The military and the clergy cause us much annoyance; the clergy and the military, they empty our wallets and rob our intelligence.”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)
“Eccentricity has always abounded when and where strength of character has abounded; and the amount of eccentricity in a society has generally been proportional to the amount of genius, mental vigour, and moral courage which it contained.”
—John Stuart Mill (1806–1873)
“Women’s battle for financial equality has barely been joined, much less won. Society still traditionally assigns to woman the role of money-handler rather than money-maker, and our assigned specialty is far more likely to be home economics than financial economics.”
—Paula Nelson (b. 1945)