Richard Addis started out by saying that politics is about leadership, but the discussion progressed to criticizing government and suggesting that politicians be “done away with.” I found this odd, for it considered with Mr. Addis’s first statement, it would seem he was saying do away with leaders. We need leader, now of all times, but leaders in a true, not titular, sense. I don’t think that was Mr. Addis’s intent, but not clarifying it was a mistake I think. The feeling in the room quickly moved to merely criticizing government in general and the rhetorical question “Have you ever seen a politician do any good?” which I found a bit galling. While I see plenty of failings in politicians and political systems on the whole, I have seen individual politicians do great good in the world. I have never seen a perfect politician, but that’s because they’re all human beings. I think it sad to dismiss ANY good a person has done, just because they haven’t done ALL good.

I also took exception to Mr. Addis’s suggestion to “abolish all armies.” We live in a world populated by human beings, which is to say imperfect creatures. We are capable of great good, but also prone to weakness and evil. My mother raised me to stand up to bullies and I believe it’s a good principle. Perhaps it’s an understatement to call the war criminals, mass murderers, warlords, and tyrants of the world “bullies” but on the world-scale, that’s what they are. And on the scale that their atrocities exist, military action is one justifiable response. How will we stand up to the bullies of the world without armies?

I do not suggest that current political systems or their officers are perfect. I do not suggest that the tactics of militaries or the manner in which military groups are applied is perfect or even always justifiable. What I do suggest is that leadership is vital, at this time more than ever, and that armies are needed. We need leaders, but ones who are honorable and humble, who will represent the best of what we are, and execute our collective tenets to the best of their ability. We need armies, but ones who are mobilized as a last resort in-line with a strategy of discretion, tolerance, and patience, whose tactics are as merciful and intelligent as possible, and who will be disengaged as soon as possible. We need to re-think the entire idea of what an army can be. Militaries in a justifiable incarnation are defenders and protectors. We need to re-imagine what it means to defend and protect and how these can be accomplished. Violence and death need not be the sum of its existence. It was once said that we sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. Perhaps you agree with this; perhaps not. Perhaps we need to revise that thought. I like to think that one of the beauties of design is that it looks and finds the most elegant solution to a challenge. Violence is a means of protecting the helpless, and while it can be effective, it is definitely not the most elegant—or the only—option. What matters is that the helpless are defended and protected.

Again, the core questions were not really addressed: Are there any political ideas so radically disruptive that they could redesign for the better the way the great powers run the world? Can political ideas solve anything? Or are we doomed to a permanent state of violent flux? I believe the answers to these are yes, yes, and no. Mr. Tabaire presented the seed of a radical idea that was left untouched: developed countries, on the whole, face less life-threatening situations than undeveloped ones. Development starts with education. What then, of any army whose primary strategy is preemptive action and whose primary tactic is education?