Lao_Tzu_and_Machiavelli_Compared_to_the_Us_Military

The United States Policy on War and the Military Should Be a Blend of Lao Tzu and Machiavelli’s ideas Lao Tzu and Niccolo Machiavelli had very different ideas about war and the military. Lao Tzu believed the leader should be less involved and the military almost non-existent. Machiavelli believed it was crucial for a leader to be completely involved and the military should be strong. In order for the United States to be a leading world power, it needs to adopt policies that are a blend of both of their ideas. In regard to weapons, Lao Tzu said, “weapons are the tools of violence…tools of fear.” He believed that there were better ways to spend the country’s money than weapons and that having more weapons actually made the country less secure. He also believed that if you were forced to use weapons, you should use them reluctantly and with restraint. Contrastingly, Machiavelli believed that being disarmed was dishonorable and that if a leader was unarmed, his armed soldiers would have no reason to follow him. The United States sides more with Machiavelli on these issues. The United States stockpiles weapons and spends quite a bit of money producing new and better weapons. Part of this money could be spent on medicines or social programs and the U.S. would still have an adequate supply. In contrast to Machiavelli’s idea about a leader needing to be armed, the President is not. Instead he is protected by the Secret Service. Also the President of the United States is more like Lao Tzu’s idea of a leader as he is less involved with military matters. While his is the Commander In Chief, he must consult with congress before making decisions regarding military policy and war. (“War Powers Resolution”) Machiavelli believes that a good leader must always be prepared for war. He must keep himself and his soldiers trained and accustomed to the hardships they will face during battles. He also believes they should study and understand the terrain around them and read history to learn from the strategies of great men so that, “no unforeseen incident could arise for which he did not have a remedy.” However, Lao Tzu believed that training for war was not a worthwhile pursuit and that a leader should place a higher value on peace. The United States is a good blend of the two in this area. A great value is placed on peace, but the military trains and prepares for war no matter the current state of things. When a leader is forced to take his army to battle, Lao Tzu maintains that it should be done with sadness and understanding of the horror of war. He believed the enemy should be seen for the human beings they are and not as simply an opposing force or as evil incarnate. Machiavelli viewed enemies as simply a force to be overcome. He valued victory and power. The United States could do a better job of training soldiers to understand that the enemy forces are indeed human beings and not some evil force. The military focuses too much on teaching soldiers to view opposing forces only as something to be defeated. The United States Government should adopt more of Lao Tzu’s philosophies when it comes to the military and war. The U.S. doesn’t need as many weapons as it currently has and the money spent on them would be of great use in other areas. If the U.S. had fewer weapons it would not make it weaker. Also, soldiers should be taught to hesitate to go into battle because they are going to have to kill real human beings with families and not some nameless evil force. A more equal blend of Lao Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s thoughts is ideal.