No Glory, only Gore
The most popular definition that the great web, which was first created in 1960s for military purposes, gives for militarism is as follows, "The belief that a country should maintain a strong military capability and be prepared to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests."
The definition itself isn't all the polarising, neither, many militarists would say that there isn't anything quite wrong with it, both in terms of accuracy and morality. It is each country's right to remain sovereign, to defend its national interests and its military is more often than not a key aspect of maintaining said liberties. So what about the definition of militarism is the focus here?
Well, the fact that it is clearly labelled as a term of derogation.
Of course, it is common knowledge that ever since the breakouts of the first two world wars and the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, war has in its essence been made illegal.
There are two ways a country could, legally, justify an act of force against another sovereign nation. The first being an explicit consent by the security council. As was given by resolution 678 of the security council in 1991 authorising the Gulf war, and thus the US and it's coalition invaded Iraq. This was justified with Iraq's invasion of it's peaceful neighbour Kuwait.
This is not to be confused with the US-Iraq war of 2003, which despite being highly ambiguous in it's necessity, largely attempted to be justified by the aforementioned resolution (678), had been declared to be illegal in 2004 by then Secretary General, Kofi Annan. Whether the Iraq war was actually justified or not, is an article of its own. Thus the topic will be put to bed at the fact that it happened and that no international legal action has been taken against the US administration at the time for initiating said war.
The second way a country could legally declare war is if a country has any legitimate argument of self-defence. This is oftentimes hard to prove, unless of course there was any first action by another country, in which scenario a country would have full right to retaliate.
Militarism is now associated with autocratic nations such as North Korea or the former Soviet Union. Not a good rap for an ideology, but not a surprise either. Militarism in Europe during the early 1900s is seen as a major reason for the first world war. The assassination of Franz Ferdinand at the hand of an 18 year old student by the name of Gavrilo Principal using a pistol in Bosnia, 1914, is widely regarded as the first step that led to the escalation that the first world war was.
Of course, assassinations aren't something new. Franz's death wasn't the first of it's kind and certainly not the most high profile. That is when the picture of a 'militaristic' ideology comes in. Some, including the infamous versailles treaty and a great majority of propaganda that circulated at the time in countries like Great Britain, laid the blame on Germany. It's people were seen as widely war-hungry, conflict instigators.
This came despite the fact that it was Russia who militarised first, it started preparations for war before Austria's ultimatum to Serbia was rejected, in what came to be known as the July crisis. That isn't to lay the blame off of others, all countries in Europe in the early 20th century were overflowing with arts and poetry romanticising war and all the supposed glory that came with it. So whether it had been Germany's, Russia's, Britain's or France's, clearly some of the blame could be laid to an ideology and a generation that saw on the glory and none of the gore of conflict.
Readiness for war, while certainly seeing a vast membership in Europe during the world wars, didn't end there. It spanned continents to the Americas and Asia, and across timelines, still resonating (even if they wouldn't admit it) with the words of countless politicians and strongmen across the world. Tony Blair certainly took a hit to the scores for his enthusiasm for the Iraq War, but Donald Trump's "Fire and Fury," has become as quotable as the British James Bond. That shows that clearly something isn't right.
Of course none of this would be fair unless taken into account with the actual actions of the past years. After all politicians are notorious for their empty claims, often coming as disappointment but in certain times a relief to many. Trump came into office with a promise to 'Make America Great Again,' one that involved building walls and a more isolationist policy when it came to foreign affairs. Promising to get troops home, Mr. Trump has done quite the opposite, largely maintaining or even increasing troops across most major stations for the US military.
On April 14th, 2018, lead by Trump, Emmanuel Macron and former UK PM, Theresa May, the coalition lead airstrikes against multiple Syrian government sites. This was in response to an alleged chemical attack by the Syrian government against its own people in the last rebel held enclave.
Despite these gloomy headlines, scholars across the board can agree upon one thing. War in itself is on a decline. The data is especially convincing when you see the number of battle deaths compared to the total population. While assuring the whole truth is never as easy, nor as clear. Global defence spending hit 1.9 trillion dollars in 2019. This was the highest rate of increase since 2010, further accelerating a growing trend that many researchers have noted.
People are becoming more convinced that there country is always under an imminent threat and thus higher resources need to be allocated to their defence. This type of action is often cyclical, as neighbouring and competing countries often take this as a cue to escalate their own spending. This cycle isn't helped by the inflammatory rhetoric that we are getting so accustomed to seeing in global politics.
It is often thought to be that pacifism is the ideological opposite of militarism. That is often not true. It is civilianism. And the benefits that we all reap with higher spending on the improvement of society rather than army is what we should be striving for. War deaths may be on the drop but with expanding inventories it takes only one itchy finger for us to have another terrible sequel of war.