(spoilers) The Sequel Trilogy era does offer a very interesting point.

The dangers of mass demilitarisation, being overly pacifistic and How idealism even if done for 'moral' reasons can be dangerous if taken too far.Reading aftermath when Mon Mothma goes all in for 'NO MILITARY AT ALL! other than some ships" its painted very much as a BAD move thats going to end up destroying the new republic. Mon Mothma meant well but she very clearly let her idealism cloud her judgement and in fact that choice sends a ripple effect that does kill the New Republic. People rightfully say the galaxy was tired from conflict and her plan had merits (It did no denying) however it was still an extreme measure that wasn't well thought out.Flash forward to Bloodlines this whole thing comes to fruition Mon Mothmas Idealism and we see the consequences of her choice. although she had a clearly good intention her choice was destroying and ultimately did lead to the destruction of the New Republic. it left it weak vulnerable and basically a rump state with little defence. You see a nation state similar to the Old Republic , No military , backstabbing a military act Leia is trying to push through in stark contrast to her mother.The Blatant pacifism that the founders of the new republic tried to bake in were in essence killing it. If the prequel trilogy was looking at how rushing to war and going to conflict is bad, and if the OT was looking at how we sometimes must stand up against corruption and end violence, then the ST era paints a picture of how dangerous running away from conflict or not preparing for it sensibly can be.Luke hid himself away , just like the new republic hid itself away and how Finn continuously runs away. We have seen Luke face conflict, Finn decide to fight and i feel the trilogy will end with the remnants of the resistance forming the New Republic again and this time realising it must fight to surviveits very interesting theme I get from this era. via /r/StarWars https://ift.tt/2Q4V5kh