Military: “An army is a tool for violence, and there are two kinds of violence… Violence to control and oppress, and violence as a means of liberation.”
Both our protagonists in the anime are from a military background, so it is fitting that they reflect upon their career and its value. I think Yang Wenli’s quote is a great way to start off some examination of the nature of military power. To understand the world, we must simplify complexities, and so we shall simplify violence into two types, not as good vs bad, but as oppression vs liberation. In LOTGH, it seems to insinuate that oppression means that the power is used to service the government, whereas liberation means that the army stands with the people against the tyrannical government. The military represents brute force, and while in the modern world order that is becoming more and more unwieldy, it is undeniable that the sheer brute force is sufficient in enforcing order.
In line with the democratic Alliance, Yang Wenli belongs to a civilian military subservient to the people, whereas Reinhard commands the militaristic government and he himself earns political legitimacy through his military performance. In LOTGH, the history of Earth is briefly discussed to set the context to this whole space exploration thing. One part of the documentary commented on how resisting the dismantling of a Space Army in the name of safeguarding the freedom and peace in space was a terrible decision because it ignores the fact that the armed force could be wielded by anyone, and that lack in impartiality only makes it a dangerous oppressive tool. In that sense, Yang’s belief in the safety of a civilian military is justified. And I believe in it too, seeing how lessons in history have panned out for countries that chose to politicise their military. Especially in view of the fact that war-mongering is not the desired platform for people to prove their talent and leadership nowadays, Reinhard’s military government is a little anachronistic. We do not have to prove our valour through military might, hence there is no need for a leader to be a general, and the dangers that Yang Wenli brought to light seem to make more sense.
Is a subservient military desirable? Is a military doctrine desirable? Regardless of whichever type it is, the citizens are overwhelmingly at mercy of force because they are simply not capable of standing up against professional soldiers. How does a government strike that balance a force that is sufficiently strong for defence, but does not backfire and return to brutalise its own citizens? There were multiple instances where the protests in the Alliance escalated into bloodshed and violence when the military made the first move and attacked an unarmed citizen. Even a civilian military is capable of becoming dangerous to the very people they were supposed to defend, much less a military government. The chilling thing is that this anime is still relevant today. More often than not we do observe that the military is used as a force of oppression, even in a safer civilian military model.
The question is, why does reality seem to reaffirm the point that military might is used more often than not for “oppression”? To me, the simple answer is that in any organisation there is a command system, especially so in the military, and there is no way that command system can be handed over to the common man, hence the actions will always be coming from a position of the state. The people’s will is fickle as well, be it because of the product of the changing times, or because of herd mentality, and an organization without a focused resolution will not be effective in any capacity. Is it because the military is always a state apparatus that it seems to always be used for “oppression”? The problem is that it implies that the leaders of the military do to a certain extent subscribe to the ideals of the state, enough to be obliged to defend it against the “liberalisation”. That may be true for Reinhard’s military, where his subordinates buy into the ideals their charismatic leader envisions and will lend their power to help Reinhard defend against destabilising elements. But that’s not always true, as exemplified in Yang Wenli’s case where he more often than not disagrees with whatever their politicians are doing but will nonetheless help defend the government and prevent a coup de’tait instead of asserting his own power when an opportunity arose.
I think behind the simple explanation, LOTGH is trying to discuss who the military is supposed to serve. In times of peace, there is a lack of an external enemy to defend against (another point to be touched on later), so who is the military answerable to? The government? The people? The politicians who were elected by the people? A state cannot exist without a stable government, so of course force has to be deployed to maintain that tenet, even if it’s against its own citizens; but a state cannot exist without its people either, so force cannot be deployed in a way that would deplete the trust that the public placed in it. This dilemma is exacerbated by the growing complexities of the nature of conflict: in LOTGH, there are a group of terrorists called the “Terraists” (nice pun), who firmly believe in the religious sacrosanctness of Earth. A few of the demonstrations turned violent was a result of these Terraists implanting the first seeds of conflict within the originally peaceful crowd. The government cannot simply excuse the casualties inflicted on unarmed civilians by attributing it to terrorists – it sounds too much like a cover excuse to repress popular opposition – but how can military power defend the nation when it intersects with the well-being of the very people they are trying to defend? My own ignorance of this matter is literally preventing me from reaching any kind of conclusion on this “nature of violence” dilemma, but I think that it is an important question that I will need to find my own set of answers to. Because in the face of new threats that infiltrate from within a country, how else can one justify turning the guns against its own citizens? Where do we draw the line between defence and oppression?
Peacetime military
Another thing that Reinhard’s story line explores is the central question for a military’s existence: What happens after there is peace? Reinhard is restless when there are no battles to be fought, hence many of his advisors think it is good that he ventures into conquest and crushing the remaining Alliance because it justifies the importance given to military powers. Imperial Russia and China and even the more recent occurrence of colonialism have demonstrated that expanding power is unsustainable. Sukarno’s revolution-based rhetoric of hyping the army up against some external threat is also indicative of the mess that will arise if the military is restless and purposeless in times of peace. After the adrenaline high of nationalism, what do we do with the fangs we have sharpened during times of peace? I think that the world we are headed towards will generally tend towards a more peaceful one, at least in the sense that there are less traditional militaristic clash of wills, and especially in a country like Singapore – where peace is essential and desired over tumult – an answer to that question is necessary.
Just because it is necessary doesn’t mean that I have an answer. I enjoyed this anime because it asks hard questions and demands for its audience to think. Just because I don’t have an answer doesn’t mean I’m satisfied with a half-hearted “just thinking about it is a good start”. I will attempt to start with the haziest form of my own thesis so that I have my own stance and I can revise it over time.
Firstly, countries don’t work in a vacuum. That means that there are unequal developmental stages and some countries still have yet to acquire peace and an army is necessary. So in a paradoxical way, unless we could disarm all military powers simultaneously at the snap of a finger, nobody would put away the military due to fear of being disadvantaged and bullied. Out of sheer absurdity, a military in times of peace is necessary just as how the nuclear arsenal as a surety for Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) during the Cold War is necessary.
Secondly, your words must carry weight – even if the weight takes the form of tonnes and tonnes of missiles. While we no longer live in “might is right” era, that immortal phrase was uttered and now remains forever etched in some unconscious part of the human psyche, or perhaps it has always just been inherent in human nature, and we will only listen to those who command respect. It’s almost saying: if you cannot back up the talk, you have no right to talk. Weight, at least when measured between countries, at its rawest and purest is about military force.
Thirdly, times of peace demands that a military make adaptations as well. I think it needs to forego some of its more anachronistic functions and adopt new ones. For example, as a nation-building feature. For example, as a diplomatic chip, or an export model, or talent recruitment. I’ve already gotten started on discussions reviewing the traditional external vs internal way of dividing the job of a military vs police, so the military needs to change the way it defines it purpose. Otherwise, inflexibility will result in the military becoming a force that sabotages peace (a lot of people like to say that a military in the times of peace is necessary so that militaristic power does not have to be used, ie. as a deterrent to maintain peace. That’s awfully nice to assume that a military still clinging on to “war” as the antonym to “peace” will not be the very thing that undermines peace.)
My third-and-a-half point (because I haven’t had anything to develop it with) is that military is a huge economic burden because it is not only an unproductive sector, but it also devours an excessive amount of economy (both directly in expenditures from GDP, and indirectly in taking two cohorts of men out of economic productivity). During times of peace, growing the economy becomes more important, and hence the times call for a completely different kind of institution in place. I can’t go any further than this as of now, but I think that was not bad for a hazy attempt at answering the question.
I feel like I’m missing out a lot of things here in the discussion, but this is a really hard question way beyond my depth. LOTGH is just a minefield for things to discuss and who knows, maybe a few years later I can revisit these and continue the reflection.
Updates 
Leave a comment