I think Pakistan is a prime example of a country which sought all its keys to success in violence… which soon engulfed its ownself. At the beginning of 1990’s – Pakistan’s per Capita GDP was higher than India’s.. and by the end of the 1990’s – they were far below. Kashmir was where it was before.. Kashmiris and Muslims of the sub-continent were poorer and more divided.. and had been the most “hunted” and killed!! So is Militarism the best choice??
Militarism is the doctrine that military might is the basic source of all security. In its mildest form it argues that military preparedness delivers peace through strength. The doctrine leads inevitably to the militarization of peace as a form of permanent preparation for war. Militarism disparages peace movements as utopian and naive.
Yet militarism can be self-defeating. It can threaten national security by energizing compensatory militarism in other countries as dictated by the doctrine of balance of power. Militarism is the doctrinal fuel for arms races, not only among hostile nations but also among allies who can be expected to change sides in the future, since international relations are affected by shifting national interests, and not based on permanent friendship. National interests of different nations converge and diverge over time, particularly in an international geopolitical architecture built on the principle of balance of power. There is strong logic in the premise that peaceful relations with neighboring states will enhance rather than diminish a nation’s overall power and security, which extend beyond the confines of the military. Militarism rejects this self-evident proposition. Militarism is not exclusive to dictatorships or authoritarian states. Liberal democracies are frequently proponents and willing victims of militarism.