So, we're discusiing security today. The concept that a superior education is a greater basis for security than an overwhelming military force was bandied about.
Of course, a military force that requires continual replenishment of supplies is a much greater source of revenue than an educated workforce which can demand higher wages.
The recipients of a superior education may be able to more capably address international concerns and engage in diplomacy, but where's the profit in that?
An overwhelming military force reduces if not eliminates the need to engage in lengthy and meaningful discussion. After all, time is money, and the military-industrial complex is a powerful group with tremendous influence.
I am not completely convinced that the argument has been effectively made that a military force can/should be used for "peace-keeping" and/or "diplomacy". To my mind, if I spend a million dollars teaching men to kill, let them do that job. If the guy is carrying a gun or a grenade, then any diplomatic discussion into which he enters is skewed from the beginning. That said, spend a million dollars educating a man in the intricacies of diplomacy and artful negotiation and allow the men with the guns stand close behind him seems to be the best combination of "walk softly and carry a big stick" on the market today.
ReplyDeleteHistory has shown repeatedly that intelligent, educated men skilled in negotiation proven to be unafraid to use force when necessary and inventive enough to outsmart their adversaries, when backed by a large, efficient military force capable of inflicting maximum damage on opposing foes is the most effective combination of "walk softly and carry a big stick".
lol Apparently, I cannot use the "copy and paste" tool effectively. :D
ReplyDelete