Good Men Must Know Violence

“Good men must know violence, so evil men do not become fluent in it.“

The phrase has been attributed to many different people over the years, and whether or not anyone famous ever uttered those exact words is almost beside the point. That’s because the statement captures an enduring truth about civilization, one that has been understood by soldiers, statesmen, and philosophers for thousands of years. Peace is not the natural condition of humanity. It is an achievement, sustained by those who possess the capability for violence but exercise the discipline not to misuse it.

Modern Western societies often struggle with this concept because they have enjoyed generations of relative security. Violence has become something viewed primarily through movies, social media, or the evening news. It is increasingly regarded as an aberration rather than a permanent feature of human existence. Yet history tells a very different story. From the city-states of ancient Greece to the trenches of Europe, from Normandy to Fallujah, societies that forgot the necessity of force rarely remained peaceful for long.

Military professionals understand this reality better than most.

The profession of arms is built upon an uncomfortable paradox. Soldiers dedicate their lives to mastering violence, not because they desire war, but because they hope their competence will make war less likely or, when it becomes unavoidable, bring it to a decisive conclusion. The Army’s doctrine describes the profession as one founded upon honorable service, stewardship, military expertise, and esprit de corps. Hidden within that framework is an unavoidable truth: military expertise ultimately includes the ability to apply organized violence on behalf of the nation.

That distinction matters.

Violence itself is morally neutral. It is a tool. Like fire, electricity, or nuclear energy, its ethical character depends entirely upon the purpose for which it is employed. The same rifle that murders an innocent civilian can also stop a terrorist from murdering dozens more. The same fighter aircraft that levels a village can also destroy an enemy armored column advancing toward a population center. The moral evaluation belongs not to the instrument but to the intent, authority, and judgment of the person wielding it.

This is precisely why good people cannot afford to become ignorant of violence.

History consistently demonstrates that evil flourishes when it encounters no meaningful resistance. Adolf Hitler did not abandon his ambitions because diplomats reasoned with him. Imperial Japan did not withdraw from Asia after receiving strongly worded letters. ISIS did not surrender Mosul because coalition forces offered persuasive arguments. Each of these movements understood violence fluently. Each required an opposing force that understood it even better.

Military history offers countless examples of deterrence succeeding precisely because violence remained credible without being employed. The Cold War never escalated into direct conflict between NATO and the Warsaw Pact largely because both sides possessed overwhelming military capability and the threat of mutual assured destruction was real. Nuclear deterrence rested upon an uncomfortable proposition: peace endured because both adversaries believed the other possessed both the means and the will to inflict catastrophic violence if necessary. It was not goodwill that preserved stability. It was capability combined with restraint.

The same principle applies at every level of warfare.

An infantry platoon that demonstrates competence may prevent an ambush before it occurs. A carrier strike group operating in contested waters communicates national resolve without firing a shot. A Special Operations task force conducting persistent presence among allies often shapes adversary decision making long before conflict begins. Modern deterrence depends not merely upon possessing weapons but upon convincing potential aggressors that those weapons can and will be employed if required.

Competence creates credibility. Credibility creates deterrence.

This principle extends beyond the battlefield into the character of individual military professionals. One of the defining features of disciplined armed forces is not their willingness to fight but their willingness to refrain from fighting until legitimate authority and lawful necessity demand it. The military profession requires extraordinary self-control precisely because it grants extraordinary destructive capability.

Anyone can become destructive. Professional soldiers become discriminating.

This distinction separates warriors from thugs.

Ancient philosophers recognized this difference long before the development of modern military ethics. Aristotle described courage as the mean between cowardice and recklessness. Neither extreme represents virtue. Cowardice abandons responsibility through fear, while recklessness embraces violence without wisdom. The truly courageous individual understands danger, possesses the capacity to confront it, and exercises judgment regarding when force is appropriate.

Modern military training attempts to cultivate exactly this balance.

Recruits are not simply taught to shoot. They are taught the law of armed conflict, rules of engagement, escalation of force, proportionality, discrimination, and accountability. Officers spend years studying ethics alongside tactics. Noncommissioned officers learn that leadership often consists not of encouraging aggression but of restraining it. Every competent military organization seeks to produce professionals who are both highly capable of violence and deeply reluctant to employ it unnecessarily.

The irony is that societies protected by such professionals sometimes misunderstand them.

Popular culture frequently oscillates between two inaccurate portrayals of military service. One depicts soldiers as eager participants in violence who relish combat for its own sake. The other imagines them as little more than humanitarian workers wearing camouflage. Neither stereotype captures reality. Most experienced combat veterans understand violence better than those who romanticize it precisely because they have witnessed its consequences firsthand. They know what bullets do to the human body. They have seen families displaced, cities destroyed, and friends buried beneath white headstones. Their respect for violence comes from experience rather than fantasy.

That experience often produces restraint rather than aggression.

The Roman writer Vegetius famously argued that those who desire peace should prepare for war. The phrase has endured because it reflects an enduring characteristic of human affairs. Preparation is not warmongering. Readiness is not belligerence. A nation that neglects military competence in pursuit of idealistic notions about permanent peace frequently discovers that its adversaries did not share the same assumptions.

The twenty-first century offers ample evidence.

Russia invaded Ukraine despite decades of international agreements. Hamas demonstrated on October 7 that terrorism remains a viable instrument for those unconstrained by morality. The Houthis continue to threaten international shipping. China expands its military capabilities while openly discussing reunification with Taiwan. None of these actors appears constrained by the hope that others have rejected violence as a means of achieving political objectives.

Strategic competition persists because human nature has not fundamentally changed.

This reality places a profound obligation upon military professionals. They must become students of violence without becoming disciples of it. They must understand its mechanics, psychology, ethics, and application while remaining firmly committed to constitutional government and civilian control of the military. Mastery without morality becomes tyranny. Morality without mastery becomes helplessness.

The American military has historically sought to occupy the difficult ground between those extremes.

Its greatest leaders understood that strength exists not for domination but for protection. George Washington willingly surrendered power to civilian authority after victory. Dwight Eisenhower, who commanded the largest amphibious invasion in history, spent much of his presidency attempting to prevent another global war. Colin Powell consistently argued that military force should serve clear political objectives rather than emotional impulses. Each recognized that possessing tremendous military capability imposed equally tremendous moral responsibility.

That may be the most important lesson embedded within the opening maxim.

Good men do not study violence because they enjoy it. They study it because someone must stand between civilization and those who would destroy it. They learn to fight so that others may live peacefully. They carry weapons not because they reject humanity but because they value it enough to defend it.

Civilizations survive when decent people possess both the character to seek peace and the competence to preserve it. Evil has always been fluent in violence. The burden of the soldier is to become equally fluent while ensuring that violence remains the servant of justice rather than its master.

_____________________________

Charles served over 27 years in the US Army, which included seven combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan with various Special Operations Forces units and two stints as an instructor at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He also completed operational tours in Egypt, the Philippines, and the Republic of Korea and earned a Doctor of Business Administration from Temple University as well as a Master of Arts in International Relations from Yale University. He is the owner of The Havok Journal, and the views expressed herein are his own and do not reflect those of the US Government or any other person or entity.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.