The thing to remember is that up until a hundred years ago or so, countries existed because some nobleman put together an army and conquered enough of his neighbors to proclaim himself king. And that country ceased to exist when some other chap got some other army together and chased the the first army out. The ability to field an army to defend your territory against other guys with armies was pretty much the definition of what a country was. It’s only recently that we have the idea that a country is defined by nationality, common interests, or the consent of the governed.
While most countries have militaries, very few of them have combat militaries which are actually capable of competently fighting a protracted war.
I don’t know if the following categorization of militaries originated with author James Dunnigan (Dirty Little Secrets) or if he’s merely passing on prior wisdom, but he breaks down militaries into at least four self-descriptive categories: political, ceremonial, police, and combat.
There can be considerable overlap. For example, the United Kingdom has ceremonial units, but if one were to present a genuine threat to the Queen’s palace guard you’d likely get your ass handed to you by those guys in funny suits. Japan prior to and during World War II had two political parties, Army and Navy, but they were also an extremely well polished combat military. And today, the greatest combat force yet seen is pulling police duty in Iraq.
What is really tragic is when military and political leaders overestimate the capabilities of their armed forces and actually do get into wars. There were a lot of bloodbaths in the late 20th Century when non-combat armies found themselves confronted with a real fight. As discussed recently in General Questions, the ceremonial armies of the Arab nations surrounding Israel were badly mauled by a force put together virtually on the spot in 1948. A small Tutsi armed force of modestly trained volunteers took on a much larger Hutu army in Rwanda and strategically outmaneuvered and defeated it in that civil war. Iran and Iraq beat each other to a bloody pulp, and Iraq appears to have taken few lessons from the experience. The Indonesian army was badly embarrassed by a few hundred SAS troops, and the United Kingdom also used its superiority to kick Argentina out of the Falklands. Lybia has managed to get in a scrap with just about every neighbor it has–and lost to them all.
A military often presents just as much danger to the country which owns it as it does to its neighbors. But not having one at all is thought by most nations to be even more dangerous. So most nations have small, minimally competent armed forces which can do a problem to an equally incompetent attacker and sometimes even superior ones, but not much else.
So who did those gunboats shooting at our fishermen in the seventies ‘Cod War’ belong to?
Because every other country has a military.
We need to know what the military status os societies were b4 Europeans spread around the world. I keep seeing this commercial? about the Louis and Clark expedition and how many tribes they met but got back alive. If indians west of the Mississippi had sent an expedition east would they have gotten back alive.
check out the book: THE ICEMAN INHERITANCE
Dal Timgar
Little Nemo’s mentioned all the countries except one that I know of who do not have a mitltary. Rather topically that one is Haiti.
What about the whole Branch Davidian situation? That seemed like a domestic situation with military response?
That’s an example of the doublespeak situation some of us mentioned so far. Iceland may not have a formal military, in the conventionally understood combat sense (a NATO joint force is in charge of that), but she does have a coastguard, that in legal terms is set up as a “civil” police/border patrol-type agency.
The status of Coast Guards and Border Patrols varies per country between being technically designated as either military services or police agencies AND between being trained, equipped and deployed as either. (one example: in the USA, the Border Patrol is a police agency, the Coast Guard a military service, even though they’re both (now) under the Homeland Security Secretary.)
Only if our definition of “military” is based on the level of violent force employed, or on the use of specific hardware. WACO, the MOVE siege in Philadelphia in the 80s (bomb dropped from helicopter), the Elian Gonzalez seizure in Miami, these were operations carried out by civil police agencies. (ATF - Treasury Dept., FBI - Justice Dept., Philly Police - the Mayor)
Sometimes I get the feeling that this question and its answer is the cause for military intervention (read: war) - Hey, we haven’t used our military for an awful lot of time and before all that hardware becomes completely obsolete, let’s show the tax payer what it’s good for, practise a bit and maybe even secure some spoils of war.
Fortunately those cynical moments when I believe this, are not often, fear not 
Anyway, the Iraq war confirmed that everyone needs to have a strong military or no military at all - if you’re not able to bite any invading force seriously in the butt, effectively scaring off any would-be occupiers, then you might as well not bother at all.
Without any cites, I am of the opinion that we’ll see a serious resizing of the military of many nations instead of disarmament as a direct result of the Iraq conflict.
[hijack]
Is anyone else struck by the irony of Wesley Clark asking the question in the OP?
[/hijack]
But I agree with Airman Doors, only an idiot would believe that goodwill would prevent any aggression.
Besides, militaries also serve other useful functions too: natural disaster recovery, ocean-going search and rescue, in some nations they may serve as a local police force, drug interdiction, they help keep insurgents suppressed, etc.
Lots of times, there’s not just an external threat to a government, but an internal one as well. Look at the rebel factions in Central/South America.
Tripler
A military is a useful sword that should be used carefully, but when used, used mercilessly.
This one’s so easy it belongs in General Questions.
A country by definition is a chunk of real estate.
The first 10,000 years of civilization have shown quite handily that the most effective way to maintain control of any-sized chunk of real estate is to posess the ability to threaten violence to those who believe you shouldn’t control it.
I just wanted to say that Iceland may not be the best example, after all there are only about 270.000 of us. The mighty Icelandic coastguard that crushed the English in the legendary Cod Wars now has a total of 130 employees and three ships: Odin (built 1959), Aegir (1968) and Tyr (1975).
The only countries we could realistically go to war with are Malta, Andorra and …the Vatican?
Nah, the Vatican could probably take us. They have lances and colorfull outfits.
The Coastguard is in no way or form combat-able. Our best chance would be the Swat team in Reykjavik, which consists of something like 8-10.
No no they could take us, The Vicar of Christ would wave this magic staff and smite all of the US… right??
Posting before having read all previous posts – sorry. I’ll catch up when I get time.
Why does every country have a military?
Why does every body have an immune system?
To keep out foreign invaders of course. Now in an ideal world there wouldn’t be any foreign invaders, but it is better to be prepared just in case. I have never had mumps. I probably never will. But if my body comes into contact with Mumps invaders, I want to know that it is adequately prepared to defend itself or at the very least can get itself ready in a short time.
If I keep my body in a sanitary environment relatively free from the threat of invasion and have little contact with other bodies, then I can probably get away with a fairly weak immune system. But pox on me if I do meet something nasty.
If, on the other hand, I have lots of contact with other bodies and behave in such a way as to provoke or invite invaders; if I decide to clean other people’s toilets or interfere with their internal affairs, then I am going to need a good defense system.
And don’t get me started on New Zealand’s defense policy. Our naiveity and stupidity in this area is arrogant in the extreme. Especially the Air Farce. We rely very heavily on the goodwill of our friends and neighbours.
Your comments are the only thing that kept me from becoming physically ill!
As for the guy using the screen name Wesley Clark, I really hope its your name, otherwise you are disrespecting a true American hero.
The real reason for maintaining armies is the same reason why some men buy expensive sports cars… overcompensating.
Seriously, think of armies as insurance. Even if it’s small, amateurish, and under-funded, it’s likely to give potential bullies a little pause. (Of course, a big country like Iraq can sweep up a little country like Kuwait in no time flat, as we all know).
Part of the answer is social/ economic/ political inertia. The military is part of the playground for the elite and privileged. (I use the word playground as in “fork over your lunch money, weakling.”) Who wants to get rid of their army just to balance the budget? I sure haven´t seen “fire soldier-boys” on any IMF or World Bank wish lists
A lot of countries, fragile democracies, say, find armies to be an effective tool to use on internal “problems.” In a pinch, a loyal military can keep your nation away from chaos. On the other hand, they work equally well to keep dictators in power.
Many countries do get a lot more mileage out of their armies than Iceland or Costa Rica could possibly get. Obviously, a lot of african countries find them pretty handy.
One quote IMHO answers this thread.
“It takes two countries to maintain peace and only one to make war”
Taking accountability for the lack of work you’ve manged in your lifetime, in order to settle the problems that plague all of our lives, is not something I would characterize as “pansy”. I consider that someone who can endure the force of vengence has a much stronger constitution than those who cannot endure it or those who propogate it under the auspices of “self defense”.
By Japanese constitution, it is illegal for the state to maintain a military force. As such, they do not have one.
They do have a bunch of guys sitting around in tanks with rifles and such and the second largest military spending in the world. But Japan has no military. (It’s only a military if it can be used for offensive purposes…)
Not that that really added anything to the discussion. It just amuses me.