It is hard to understand what Kurlansky was driving to when he stated: “the state imagines it is impotent without a military because it cannot conceive of power without power” (Kurlansky 2006). This is evidenced by the fact that one can come up with many questions about this lesson. For instance, is it possible that Kurlansky implied that absence of power results to no state? Or is it possible that he thought that the state was the structural significance of power? Answering these questions enables one to understand the current power tussles in many states. Some Presidents of states have been overthrown because of lack of amicable cohesion between the government and their respective military. A good support of this claim is what took place in Egypt two years ago. The Egyptian army overthrew President Mohamed Morsi and held him together with his entire presidential term under house arrest. If President Morsi could have had a military, I mean him having a close relationship with the military; he could have secured his power as a president. In connection with the happenings in Egypt, many states are justified to consider themselves impotent if their relationship with their military is poor.
As argued by Kurlansky, it is true “violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence” (Kurlansky 2006). In relation to this claim, I came across a paper narrating what took place in Kenya as a result of election violence in 2007. The loss of the presidential results to one of the aspirants who was believed to have won through rigging the elections triggered violence between his supporters and those of his opponent. The majority of the people who participated in that election violence thought violence was the only way to solve their problem. Some politicians also fueled the hatred between people through financing their violence against each other. Unfortunately, the violence escalated beyond the control of the state leading to the loss of many innocent lives.