The Eighth Proposition
Subverting the Industrial-Military Complex
In yesterday’s edition of The Hames Report I listed seven propositions that could help bring peace to our world. I defined peace as an enduring condition in which not only is war absent, but the impulses that lead to war, the traits that allow wars to continue, and the weapons that are used to kill and maim so many hundreds of thousands of people, are no longer extant.
Attentive readers may have noticed a substantial omission – an eighth proposition that would probably be essential in order to achieve peace, even if the other seven were in place. I refer to the dismantling of the industrial-military complex, visibly spearheaded by permanent uniformed militaries - a constant reminder that conflict is assumed to be an integral and permanent element of human aggression - and the budgets that sustain these capabilities on standby, ready to do battle at a moment’s notice.
While these euphemistically-named defense institutions exist, the spectre of war cannot recede – unless, that is, they were to be tasked with an alternative distinctive mission to that of killing.
In Project PeaceQuest, the Centre for the Future examined the nature of the war establishment globally. We concluded that the resistance from the general public to dismantling the machinery of war would be overwhelming; the task almost impossible unless we could find a formula that had universal appeal.
So instead of putting resources into such a futile and absurd Sisyphaean task we took a different tack - using the highly skilled resources of the military for constructive purposes. Briefly, the proposal hinged on creating coalitions of armies and transforming military resources to address global challenges. The idea was to leverage the exceptional organizational skills, logistics, and manpower of military forces in waiting to undertake humanitarian projects, build infrastructure in underdeveloped regions, and respond to climate-related issues and natural disasters.
By examining the underlying causes of conflict and exploring pathways to peace, PeaceQuest aimed to inspire transformative change and contribute to a more peaceful and just world. The idea was warmly received in a number of different forums, and then quietly dropped mainly, we suspect, because of the economic power of the industrial-military complex.
PeaceQuest was only one, albeit seminal, idea. There were others – but they all had one thing in common. To shift humanity away from the menace of war and toward an enduring peace, we must define and then embrace a worldview that transcends the traditional militaristic archetype, along with the neoliberal impulse that continues to give it steam and relevance.
Impulses Leading to War
At the heart of many conflicts lies the potent and often primal impulse of fear. This emotion can manifest in various forms - fear of other nations, fear of rival groups, or even fear of internal dissent. In the realm of international relations, fear and paranoia can drive countries to adopt aggressive postures, leading them to perceive threats where none exist. When a nation feels insecure, whether due to economic instability, military inferiority, or socio-political turmoil, it may resort to aggression as a means of self-preservation.
This fear can distort perceptions, causing rulers to overestimate threats and underestimate the potential for cooperation. The psychological aspect of fear plays a significant role; it can create a cycle of hostility where one nation’s defensive actions prompt another to respond in kind, escalating tensions and paving the way for war.
Moreover, fear can be deeply rooted in a nation’s identity and historical context. We see this most clearly in the Middle East today. When societies suffer from the horror of past traumas - whether through wars, colonization, persecution or, in the case of Israel, a Holocaust that exterminated around 6 million Jews from 1941 to 1945 - historical grievances can linger long after the events themselves. Collective memory, alongside a refusal to forget, influences how communities view not only their own history but also their relationships with others. For example, a nation that has suffered from invasion or occupation may harbour a deep-seated fear of re-enacting that ordeal, leading to a defensive and often aggressive stance toward perceived threats. This sense of historical grievance can fuel animosities that span generations, making reconciliation extremely difficult.
The interaction between fear and historical grievances creates a convoluted web of motivations that easily spill over into conflict. When political rulers invoke these historical narratives, they can rally public support for military action by appealing to collective fears and memories. In this way, the past becomes a powerful tool in shaping present-day conflicts, as unresolved issues can ignite tensions that otherwise lie dormant. Understanding these impulses is crucial in addressing the root causes of war, as it highlights the need for dialogue, education, and empathy to break the cycles of fear and animosity.
By acknowledging and addressing the psychological dimensions of fear and the weight of history, we can begin to pave the way for a more accommodating world, one that prioritizes understanding over conflict and healing over hostility. But there are still some underlying habits that remain problematic.
Traits Allowing Wars to Continue
In contemporary society, one of the most insidious traits that allows wars to continue is the widespread desensitization to violence. This phenomenon is largely driven by the pervasive representation of conflict in media - television, films, video games, and news reports. Such portrayals often depict violence in a sensationalized manner, detaching it from its real-world consequences and creating an illusion of normalcy around war. When audiences are repeatedly exposed to violent imagery, they can become numb to its brutality, leading to a mindset that regards military conflict as a viable and even acceptable way to resolve disputes.
This desensitization not only dulls the public's emotional response to violence but also shapes our cultural accounts about conflict. The portrayal of war as heroic and glamorous can further entrench the idea that military engagement is a legitimate path to achieving national goals. Consequently, societies may become more willing to support military interventions without fully comprehending (or willingly disregarding) the grave implications of their actions. The normalization of violence and brutality in media fosters a milieu in which discussions about war are stripped of their moral weight, allowing those in power to pursue military options with less scrutiny and accountability. Very often, or so it seems, assumption start with the notion that war is inevitable. When that is the first principle, then peaceful solutions can never gain traction.
Another critical trait that perpetuates war is the political incentives that often drive national leaders to engage in or escalate conflicts. In many cases, political celebrities can rally public support by invoking national security threats or appealing to patriotic sentiments, especially during times of crisis. War can initially serve as a unifying force, temporarily diverting attention from domestic issues, such as economic downturns or social unrest. By framing military action as an indispensable and vital response to external threats, politicians can bolster their approval ratings and consolidate power, creating a cycle where the benefits of war outweigh the costs in the eyes of those in power. I realise this is cynical, but it is also political realism at work.
This cycle is further reinforced by the economic interests intertwined with the military-industrial complex. The relationships between governments and defense contractors create a powerful lobby that advocates for continued military spending and conflict. These economic interests often prioritize profit over peace, as companies that manufacture weapons and military technology have a vested interest in maintaining a state of conflict. The result is a system deliberately designed to perpetuate conflict, where political rulers, influenced by these interests, often corruptly, may prioritize military intervention over ‘softer’ diplomatic solutions.
Understanding our desensitization to violence, political incentives, and economic interests not as discrete traits, but as an interconnected dark web of inducement to combat, illustrates the highly charged feelings and dynamics that allow the most irrational wars to persist. By recognizing how media representations unwittingly mold our perceptions of a fragile situation, how political leaders leverage crises for personal gain or to enhance their tough reputation, and how economic motivations can drive militarization, we can begin to unravel the systemic issues that sustain war. Addressing these factors is essential for cultivating a culture that prioritizes peace, dialogue, and genuine conflict resolution over cycles of fear and violence.
Manufacturing Arms
The industrial-military complex plays a pivotal role in perpetuating conflict through the production and proliferation of various types of weapons. Among these, drones, the new generation of hypersonic missiles, and nuclear arms stand out as particularly repulsive. Drones, for example, have transformed modern warfare, enabling nations to conduct remote operations with minimal risk to their own personnel. While they can offer tactical advantages, their use raises serious ethical concerns and invariably lead to ‘unintended’ civilian casualties, further entrenching animosities and destabilizing regions.
Nuclear weapons exist on a different level altogether. Even tactical nuclear warheads pose an existential threat to global security. The mere existence of these weapons incites an atmosphere of dread. As nations engage in arms races to maintain deterrence, perpetuating a cycle of distrust that can easily escalate into conflict and, most agree, the likely annhilation of human life, there seem to be no mature adults in the room willing to propose de-escalation initiatives.
The global arms trade exacerbates these issues by fueling conflicts across the globe. Arms sales prioritize profit over peace, with powerful nations exporting weapons to regions plagued by instability. This influx of arms almost always intensifies existing conflicts, enabling totalitarian regimes to oppress their population, undermining efforts for democracy and human rights. Moreover, the arms trade in and of itself can create a vicious cycle; as weapons flow into a region, they empower groups that perpetuate violence, leading to further instability and suffering. Any analysis of the impact of arms sales on both local and international stability will underscore the urgent need for disarmament initiatives and more stringent regulations on the global arms trade.
Technological advancements in military capabilities also present new challenges for peace. Innovations such as cyber warfare and autonomous weapons systems complicate traditional notions of conflict and deterrence. Cyber warfare allows nations to engage in conflict without conventional military engagement, targeting critical infrastructure and sowing chaos without a single bullet being fired. This form of warfare can create vulnerabilities that are difficult to defend against, blurring the lines between peace and war in unprecedented ways.
Autonomous weapons systems, which operate without human intervention, raise ethical questions about accountability and the potential for escalation in conflict. The deployment of such technologies can lead to a new arms race, as nations rush to develop and deploy advanced systems, further thwarting efforts aimed at global stability.
Addressing the issue of weapons manufacturing, arms sales, and the technological advancements that can so easily remove control out of human hands requires a concerted effort. We must keep trying to regulate arms proliferation, advocate for disarmament, and rethink the role of technology applied to the military.
Public Sentiment and Advocacy
Generally speaking it tends to be psychopaths with political clout backed by money (i.e. so-called world leaders) that decide war is the only way forward. They seem comfortable sending brigades of young people to face their deaths in foreign countries, as long as they themselves are not near the front line. That is where public opinion and collective action can enter the equation.
Public sentiment at scale can play a crucial role in framing and shaping policy decisions related to war and peace. When citizens express their outrage - through passionate protests and social activism, they exert significant pressure on governments to reevaluate militaristic strategies in favour of diplomatic solutions.
Advocacy movements, especially those focused on anti-war initiatives or peace building efforts, also serve as powerful catalysts for positive change, rallying entire communities to voice their opposition to warfare. These movements can influence public opinion, shift political narratives, and ultimately persuade those wielding power to adopt policies that align more closely with the public desire for peace.
Historical examples demonstrate how grassroots movements successfully altered the course of national policies. During the Vietnam War, widespread protests and a massive public outcry led by celebrities like Jane Fonda, Mohammad Ali and Bob Dylan, influenced US government decisions, leading to a total reevaluation of military engagement. Today, similar movements continue to advocate for disarmament, humanitarian aid, and conflict resolution, highlighting the importance of citizen engagement in creating a more peaceful world. By consciously crafting an ethos of activism, communities are able to create a robust framework for prioritizing peace, ensuring that the voices of the people resonate in the corridors of power.
Cultural Factors
Cultural narratives and national identity profoundly influence the propensity for conflict and resistance to peace efforts. The stories that societies tell about themselves - their history, values, and collective experiences - shape how they perceive others and respond to threats. In many cases, cultural narratives can glorify militarism and valorize historical conflicts, reinforcing a mindset that sees war as an acceptable means of resolving disputes. National identity, shaped by historical grievances and collective memory, can further entrench hostilities, making reconciliation efforts highly challenging.
For example, societies with a history of conflict may develop a narrative that emphasizes victimhood or exceptionalism, nurturing distrust and animosity toward perceived adversaries. This often creates a cycle where cultural narratives propagate conflict, as like-minded groups become entrenched in their identities and resistant to dialogue and compromise. Conversely, cultures that embrace narratives of cooperation, empathy, compassion and shared humanity are often better equipped emotionally to pursue peace. This highlights the critical role that education and narrative power play in transforming societal attitudes toward conflict.
Personally I am inclined to believe that almost everything hinges on education, or at least the ways we apply formal schooling to install people into society.
So imagine a world where education serves as the bedrock of peace, instilling values of empathy, reframing, and cultural understanding from an early age. By equipping future generations to tolerate and even embrace diversity, along with the means to foster cooperation through appreciation of difference, we can cultivate a mindset that prioritizes dialogue over discord.
In this world, the economic conversion of industries reliant on military contracts, would be an imperative, redirecting their energies away from military hardware manufactured to kill, maim and destroy, toward societal software designed to heal trauma, restore warzones and advance all forms of non-aggression. By transforming these sectors to focus on renewable energy, search and rescue, wellness and well-being, and the up-skilling of trades, we could dismantle the economic incentives that prolong conflict and redirect entire industries to a common purpose decoupled from butchery.
As envisaged in PeaceQuest, the shift would need to be complemented by the establishment of international peacebuilding coalitions—alliances of nations, NGOs, and civil society committed to resolving any disputes through diplomacy and collaboration rather than military might.
At a grassroots level, empowering communities to mediate and resolve their own conflicts through restorative justice and similar practices would begin to create a ripple effect of peace. Supporting local initiatives invariably fosters deep resilience, allowing communities to address grievances before they escalate into hostilities. Coupled with this is the need for research and advocacy focused on disarmament, particularly shining a spotlight on the humanitarian costs of military spending, and the reckless futility of it all, while promoting treaties to eliminate the most dangerous weapons. This should be the role of incumbent rulers around the world. It should be a primary focus of the social contract between citizens and their elected representatives. Ironically, perserving peace usually takes a back seat in preference to making money – such is the system we have designed and tolerated for too long.
We can further enhance our efforts by forming international crisis response teams, blending military logistics with civilian expertise in humanitarian aid and conflict resolution. These teams would stand ready to act swiftly in times of crisis, prioritizing peaceful solutions over aggression. Cultural exchange programs might also enrich this framework, fostering appreciation for diverse traditions and reducing ingrained prejudices that so often fuel conflict.
In today's world, the power of narrative is more consequential than at any other time in human history. As legacy mainstream media experiences a drastic decline, in audience numbers, turning increasingly (anxiously) to propaganda in order to attract the unthinking citizens’ attention, a variety of alternative media voices have surfaced, capturing the loyalty of audiences that are desperately seeking the truth and concerned with how it’s conveyed.
Digital news outlets, independent writers, and social media influencers are reshaping the media landscape, fostering new communities of interest around shared matters. These platforms provide investigative journalism and direct insights, enabling personal connections that’s not forthcoming on mainstream media.
Podcasts facilitate in-depth discussions that resonate with listeners, while alternative networks and grassroots programs offer differing viewpoints on important issues, further cultivating community engagement. Local media and niche publications strengthen ties by addressing often-neglected topics, attracting dedicated audiences.
This evolution highlights a growing demand for diverse perspectives and authentic narratives, transforming how we connect with the news and each other. As we amplify the voices of nonviolent movements advocating for social change, we create a powerful counter-narrative to militarization, and this then provides an anchor to secure wider public engagement.
Public awareness campaigns that illuminate the true costs of war and the profound benefits of peace can shift societal priorities. It did in Vietnam. It did after Iraq. And it is doing so today as Israel becomes an international pariah on the global stage for its continuing genocide of the Palestian people.
By fostering a collective consciousness that values harmony and collaboration, we pave the way for a profound transformation. In this reimagined world, the path to peace is not merely a dream but a tangible journey – a journey that begins with us.