Should we take for granted strategic reasoning that states that military violence is a rational means used to serve political ends ? This article addresses this issue through a reading of works in the humanities (history, anthropology, and communication studies) other than international relations. Using these, it highlights the fact that strategic reasoning owes its staying power to the interests of certain actors responsible for framing the effects of the use of force in a highly selective, if not overtly biased manner. To take the full measure of this phenomenon, a non-disciplinary approach is needed.