This paper will discuss Bruce Porter's book, War and the Rise of the State. The body of the paper will outline Porter's thesis, presenting examples to illustrate his arguments. The remaining portion of the paper will discuss Porter's conclusions concerning the future of the relationship between warfare and the state as compared to the conclusions of Jessica Mathews and Martin van Creveld.
At the outset of his book, Porter asserts that war has been one of the essential elements in Western history, transforming societies and contributing to the rise of the modern nation-state. The transforming effects of war have much to do with its nature of organized destruction. Organized destruction, according to Porter, can weaken or destroy traditional structures or compel internal reforms. Over the course of Western history, such organized destruction has caused western societies to move from medieval, traditional, decentralized, and personal forms of government to bureaucratic, rationalized, centralized, and impersonal forms (Porter, 1994, p. xiv).
Porter states that, contrary to the notions of many historians, war has played a central role in history. They are not tragic intermissions or transient phenomena; rather, warfare is a powerful catalyst for change, be it good or bad. In Western history, warfare has led to the increase in the size and power of central governments. Strong states violently imposed peace on divided societies, eliminating the possibility of civil war and anarchy, but also decreasing political freedom. Indeed, the increase in military power needed for defending a society against foreign aggression can easily be used for internal repression. Eventually, this increase in military and central governmental power can lead to the establishment of totalitarian states, as has been witnessed in the Twentieth Century (Porter, 1994, p. xv).
On the other hand, the mobilization required by war need not automatically re...