Talk:The Soldier and the State

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history: Historiography / South Pacific C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military historiography task force
	Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force

This article needs work

It shouldn't be a long summery of the work. It should provide a summery, but than provide why this is important. There is nothing here that shows the importance of the book.

the article is a stub, needs more work

in his book samuel huntington argues to make a distinction between the role and the nature of the military (eg. army). that is the military has its own special nature which is not always corresponding to the role the military plays in a given state. he says there is a true form of military, which is defined by professionalism, its first historical example being the army of Prussia. he says that a military is/has to be/ a profesional force led by commanders that are trained in the military sciences and are appointed from within the ranks, as opposed to pre-napoleonian and pre-prussian aristocratic build-ups. then he progresses to show, how such a "true" military is superior compared to other types. he defines a "military mindset" as being pessimistic, eg: a belief in inevitability of armed conflicts, hence a need to have a strong military force and a conservativeness, eg: the urge to put up as much preparations and amass as much force-contributing factors as possible, for the consequences of losing are so high, that according to huntington, the military mind-set never thinks it has made enough preparations to ensure victory in an armed conflict - hence a certain kind of "pacifism": evade the onset of an armed conflict as long as there seems to be a chance to achieve a better ballance of forces - to prepare and equip one's own army better for the fight (which ultimately is inevitable since human nature is destined so that it ends up in use of force/ a violent conflict sooner or later). Huntington also cites some examples of how warmondgering "can never be attributed to real professioanal military men - but instead to either politicians, or military leaders who werent typically trained and raised in a military education system and environment, but are rather outsiders to the system of the military".

as to the importance of the book it clearly stems from its authors later notoriety for the "clash of civilizations".

what i really miss from the article, is an analysis/criticism, or at least an influences- section. 80.98.114.70 (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2016 (UTC).[reply]