This argument assumes too much of the future. Major strategists argue that one cannot predict the future as theorists have tried after every major successive war to declare world peace. History has a continuity, meaning that any potential threat must be accounted for. Most strategists who predicted in the 1990s that terrorism was the new war are currently biting their tongue at the prospect of a potential Sino-Russian axis, or merely just the prospect of a rising Chinese superpower. If there is any chance of a future threat, it would be prudent to maintain a proficient military now rather than have to start from scratch later. States can do things for ideological purposes or to quell domestic dissent at home. The reasons for invasion don’t have to merely be obvious to everyone. Essentially, international relations is unpredictable.
In addition, this argument implies that military force is simply kept for the immoral act of imposing political systems upon others. What about when intervention is necessary for humanitarian purposes – arguably in Bosnia, Kosovo. Military action is a flexible tool.
Finally, our military has been gradually reduced since the end of the Cold War, making this argument less and less relivent anyway.

While this is a passionate argument, I would disagree with it. Our liberal culture has coloured perceptions of the two world wars and has obscured certain truths. For example, most modern historians have begun to refute the assertion that the leading officers of the First World War were of a poor quality and that World War One was a needless slaughter. In essence, both world wars were a reflection of the international system and one must remain dispassionate about their conduct in order to analyse their meanings. It is an oversimplification to say that volunteers were ‘fooled’ into their role as soldiers. At one point does one distinguish between the propaganda of recruitment and genuine human desire to serve the community from which we derive? Even as educated people today, there still exist many who strive to serve their country in a military way and it has been culturally imbedded in the mainstream that a soldier is an honourable/brave/admirable being. This is a reciprical relationship – if people didn’t believe in the military institution then they would not publically applaud the troops who return from Afghanistan/Iraq to such an extent.
Following this, the examples cited (Kenya, Ireland) are a matter of perspective. While we may find colonialism a disgrace today, we should realise that it was part of a historical context. Many European powers sought an empire and the British empire was merely the biggest. As such, many contemporaries saw these examples as methods of policing and many British people were in agreement with the logic of empire.

This sounds a little utopian. What would be the inclinations for a power that percieves itself as great to give up its right to a military culture? In essence, this is an admirable position, but is wholly unrealistic. Other powers may simply exploit Britain’s surrendering of power status in order to project their own power on their regional neighbours. It is unlikely that the world will share Britain’s vision.
All theories of international relations have to work on the presumption that we live in nation-states without world government. The failure of the UN to install even the means for a common security policy are evident of the world’s rejection of multilateralism. Even if Britain surrenders its use of force, others won’t.