General Peter van Uhm is the Chief of Defense Staff (CDS) of the Netherlands, which makes him the highest-ranking military officer in that country. He commanded an infantry company of the Dutch UN battalion in Lebanon in 1983, and served with headquarters of SFOR in Bosnia in 2000-2001, as well as overseeing, first as Commander Land Forces and then as Chief of Defense Staff, the Dutch involvement in Afghanistan from 2006 to 2010. The day after his appointment as CDS, his son Dennis, at the time a Dutch army lieutenant, was killed by a roadside IED northwest of Tarin Kowt, Uruzgan province.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHX5lAslnTcI think some observations do need to made concerning Van Uhm's talk, the first and perhaps foremost of which is that the Weberian
Gewaltmonopol des Staates (
"the state's monopoly on violence") does not preclude private citizens from using violence, e.g. in self-defense, but the state still has the monopoly on ruling whether an instance of private use of violence is legitimate (thus the state still has the authority to investigate, prosecute and try an assault or homicide claimed to be in self-defense). Furthermore, for over 80% of those 500 years of declining murder rates, private ownership of firearms was for all practical purposes unrestricted. Hence, a firearm need not necessarily be in the hands of an agent of the state to be interposed between those who would do harm and those upon whom harm would be visited.
I'm not entirely certain what lessons I'm prepared to draw from Van Uhm's talk, but I thought I'd share because it is thought-provoking.