How was it possible that Colombia, a country stigmatized as a problematic one, has come to be taken as a reference for solutions regarding military operations? Such puzzle is related to the emergence of a post-conflict discourse in Colombia by the 2010s, that is, the claim of a transition from a problematic conflict to a successful post-conflict. By arguing that both the analyses pointing to a post-conflict scenario and those resisting such a claim are all operating with the logics of the presence/absence of violence, I propose to think about this puzzle in terms of the transformation of the rules through which violence is transmitted and the conditions allowing for this. This analytical effort unfolds in two main parts. In the first one, I investigate how the problem of violence has been historically built in Colombia. In the second, I explore how the military professional mobilized through this specific understanding of violence was historically constituted through a circuit of military savoirs. Based on this analysis, the research confronts the traditional institutionalist emphasis of civil-military debates. It does so by showing that as important as looking to the police-military boundary to think about violence and its relation to democracy, is looking to the school-training splitting observed in the ascendancy of the Colombian military as experts in the use of violence in Latin America. Finally, I claim that one can only understand the consolidation of an edifice of military savoirs in Colombia by framing it within broader dynamics of transmission of expertise.