When someone claims that standing armies produce wars based solely on historical patterns, which fallacy are they committing?

The assertion that standing armies produce wars based solely on historical patterns exemplifies the Post Hoc fallacy, which stems from the Latin phrase "post hoc, ergo propter hoc," translating to "after this, therefore because of this." This fallacy occurs when one assumes a causal relationship based solely on the sequence of events, without sufficient evidence to support that link. In this case, claiming that the existence of standing armies directly leads to wars merely because historical examples align in such a way fails to take into account other contributing factors or contexts that may influence the occurrence of war.

The reliance on historical patterns can be misleading because it oversimplifies complex relationships and ignores various variables that could affect outcomes. The presence of standing armies might coincide with wars, but this does not unequivocally indicate that they are the direct cause. Analyzing causal relationships requires a thorough examination of multiple factors rather than drawing conclusions from correlation alone, rendering the Post Hoc fallacy particularly pertinent in this scenario.