Rethinking Military Power in the Service of Societies
For centuries, armies have been one of the main instruments used by states to defend themselves.
Their primary mission is well known: to protect a territory, a population, and the sovereignty of a nation against external threats.
To accomplish this mission, societies have developed enormous organizations: millions of trained women and men, logistical capabilities, infrastructure, transportation systems, medical services, engineering capabilities, communication networks, and coordination mechanisms.
But today, a question deserves to be asked:
What if part of this immense collective capacity could also be mobilized to build peace?
Military Power Is More Than Weapons
When we think of an army, we naturally think of soldiers, weapons, tanks, aircraft, or ships.
But a modern military is also an enormous human and logistical organization.
It can rapidly move thousands of people.
It can deliver water, food, and equipment.
It has doctors, engineers, communications specialists, logistics experts, and many other professionals.
It can build, transport, rescue, organize, and operate in extremely difficult environments.
These capabilities are not inherently military.
They are fundamentally human and organizational capabilities.
The question therefore becomes:
Why should their use be primarily associated with war?
Toward the Concept of “Social Armies”
Universal Peace Era proposes reflecting on a concept we call “social armies.”
A social army would not be an army designed to replace civilian institutions.
Nor would it be an army intended to intervene in every aspect of social life.
It would be an organized capacity to protect and support populations, mobilized when ordinary civilian resources are insufficient to respond to the scale of a crisis.
A natural disaster can destroy a city within hours.
A flood can displace thousands of people.
An earthquake can make essential infrastructure unusable.
A major wildfire can require the evacuation of entire populations.
A pandemic can place extraordinary pressure on healthcare systems.
In such situations, society needs people capable of rescuing, transporting, building, treating, supplying, and coordinating.
Why not consider these capabilities an integral part of national security?
From Territorial Defense to the Protection of Society
Security in the 21st century can no longer be understood solely in military terms.
Protecting a population does not only mean preventing an invasion.
It also means protecting critical infrastructure.
Ensuring access to water and food.
Being able to respond rapidly to disasters.
Protecting the most vulnerable populations.
Rebuilding after a crisis.
Maintaining the continuity of essential services.
A broader conception of security could therefore lead to an evolution in the role of armed forces.
The military could continue to fulfill its traditional national defense mission while also developing stronger capabilities in civil protection, emergency response, and reconstruction.
Transforming Part of Military Power into Peace Power
The objective would not necessarily be to reduce all military capabilities.
Rather, it would be to consider their partial reorientation.
Some resources devoted to preparing for and responding to conflicts could also contribute to developing capabilities that can be used in peacetime and during major disasters.
Specialized units could be increasingly oriented toward:
- emergency response;
- reconstruction;
- humanitarian logistics;
- natural disasters;
- health crises;
- protection of critical infrastructure;
- responses to major environmental risks;
- international assistance following major disasters.
From this perspective, a nation's strength would no longer be measured solely by its ability to fight.
It would also be measured by its ability to protect its citizens when they face crises that are not military in nature.
What If Soldiers Also Became Agents of Resilience?
The concept of social armies also raises questions about training.
Military personnel could be trained not only in combat and national defense, but also in certain areas of emergency response, first aid, humanitarian logistics, reconstruction, and disaster management.
This could create a considerable national capability.
Thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, of people could be rapidly mobilized when a disaster exceeds the ordinary capacity of civilian services.
Such an approach could also strengthen the relationship between armed forces and the population.
The military would no longer be viewed only through its function of defending society against an adversary.
It could also be recognized as a national capacity for resilience.
National Armies Capable of Serving Humanity
The concept can also extend beyond the national framework.
When an earthquake strikes a country, it should not be necessary for that country to be an ally for other nations to provide assistance.
When a humanitarian disaster occurs, the logistical and medical capabilities of states can become instruments of international solidarity.
Armies could therefore participate more extensively in international disaster-response mechanisms, under clearly defined frameworks and in accordance with international law.
A French military could help rescue a foreign population.
A Japanese military could contribute to reconstruction after an earthquake.
An African military could participate in a regional humanitarian operation.
A U.S. military could mobilize its logistical capabilities following an international disaster.
National power could thus become, under certain circumstances, a capacity placed at the service of humanity.
Building Peace Does Not Simply Mean Ending War
Peace is often defined as the absence of war.
But a society can be at peace while remaining extremely vulnerable.
A natural disaster can destroy a community without a single shot being fired.
A food crisis can destabilize a region.
A pandemic can cause millions of deaths.
A climate-related disaster can displace entire populations.
Lasting peace therefore also requires societies capable of withstanding crises, recovering, and rebuilding.
This is where the concept of social armies becomes meaningful.
An army would no longer only be capable of defending a society against those who seek to destroy it.
It could also help strengthen society's ability to survive, recover, and rebuild.
Toward a New Definition of Power
For centuries, the power of a state has been largely associated with its territory, resources, and military capabilities.
Perhaps we now need to broaden this definition.
A powerful nation would not only be a nation capable of winning a war.
It would also be a nation capable of effectively protecting its population from disasters, rapidly rebuilding its infrastructure, and contributing to the rescue of other populations.
True power could gradually become a combination of:
defense + resilience + emergency response + reconstruction + cooperation.
This change in perspective would not eliminate armies.
It could give them an additional dimension.
From Armies of War to Armies of Peace
The idea of social armies is not based on the assumption that conflicts have disappeared.
They have not.
States must continue to be able to defend their populations.
But preparing for war may not be the only way to prepare for the future.
We can also prepare societies to survive disasters.
We can prepare future generations to cooperate.
We can transform certain forms of power into capacities for protection.
And we can make international solidarity not merely a declaration of principle, but a concrete capacity to intervene.
An army possesses an immense capacity for mobilization.
The question may simply be:
Could we use more of that capacity to save lives rather than merely prepare to defend them?
The 21st century could be an opportunity to profoundly rethink what it means to be a power.
Armies of war capable of defending.
Armies of peace capable of rescuing.
And perhaps one day, social armies capable of placing part of their power at the service of the resilience of societies and humanity.
Because peace is not only about preventing destruction.
Peace is also about building the capabilities needed to protect life.
Universal Peace Era
Building a future where humanity can choose cooperation over permanent confrontation.