Clausewitz's On War, first published in 1832, until now remains one of the most influential studies in understanding character, nature and conditions of warfare. In his book Clausewitz not only traced an interaction of intension and planning with the realities of combat, but by exploring the relationship of war to policy, politics and society gave a new philosophical justification to the art of war. (Heuser, 2002)
One of the most important claims made by Clausewitz in his book is that “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. (Clausewitz, 2007, p. 28) Indeed, Clausewitz argues that despite its violent character war is predetermined by political objectives and dictated by the rational pursuit of political goals. As he puts it in his book: “The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it, and means can never be considered in isolation from their purpose”. (Clausewitz, 2007, p. 29)
By the end of the Cold War the literature focusing on strategic studies has highlighted transformational changes within international system that affected and altered the very nature of war. As a result many security studies scholars have renounced traditional theories of strategic thought. Clausewitzian theory, in particular, has taken a lot of criticism, regarding its relevance to modern warfare. (Gray, How Has War Changed Since the End of the Cold War?, 2005)
In this essay I argue that despite transformational changes in the character of war the nature of war has remained unchanged and therefore Clausewitzian concept on relationship between “war” and “politics” remain a viable tool that contributes to our understanding of contemporary warfare. First, I will evaluate Clausewitz’ trinity concept, then present the arguments of...
... middle of paper ...
...f war. It’ll probably be utopian to claim that all of Clausewitz's military thoughts have remained relevant. His vision of war did not include its economic, air, sea, and space dimensions, for example. But his concept of war, his trinity, and his understanding of the relationship between politics and war “will remain valid as long as states, drug lords, warrior clans, and terrorist groups have mind to wage it”. (Echevarria, 1996) I would agree that it is not that Clausewitz provides the best theory of war that ever could be, but only that it is the best available. (Gray, Clausewitz, History, and the Future Strategic World, 2003) Therefore as long as communities wage war in order to preserve their identities as well as pursue their interests, Clausewitz’s theory will remain a useful tool for understanding and analyzing war and violent conflict. (Herberg-Rothe, 2009)
Von Clausewitz, Carl. Translated and edited by Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret. On War. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976.
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Clausewitz emphasizes that “war is a branch of political activity, that it is in no sense autonomous” (Clausewitz, 605). This principle is especially applicable to the post-war period of World War II. The political struggle between the ideologies of democracy and communism would entail global focus for the next 50 years, and the events that brought about the defeat of Germany shaped the landscape of this political struggle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Titus Livius (Livy) XXX: 28. [2] An Encyclopaedia Britannica article entitled The Conduct and Theory of War
In the books All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque and The Wars by Timothy Findley, there is clear evidence of the nature of war. With all the efforts of preparation, discipline, and anticipation, false hopes were created for the young individuals, who leave the battlefields with numerous emotional and physical scars. The propaganda and disciplinary training to convince naïve young men to go to battle to fight for their country, the death of their comrades, and the physical breakdown are all part of twentieth century warfare.
Tzu, Mo. Against Offensive Warfare. Ed. Michael Austin. Reading the World: Ideas that Matter. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2010. 254-255. Print.
McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.
War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and subjectively concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a constant battle between death and love.
The government of the United States and of Oceania use war as a political tool to control the social views of the people, the products and wealth of the country, and the opinions of politicians and government officials. The ways in which war is used as a political tool includes controlling citizens, and products of a country. Both the country in 1984 and the United States use war in similar ways. When comparing the current time with the story of 1984 it is easy to see the similarities in how war is used as a political tool.
Trapp, James. The art of war: a new translation. New York: Chartwell Books, 2012. Print.
Amongst military theorists and practitioners who studied war, its origin and implications, Carl von Clausewitz assumes a place among the most prominent figures. With his book On War, he demonstrated his capability to provide thorough historical analysis and conclusions of the conflicts in which he was engaged, and as a philosopher he reflected about all encompassing aspects of war. Today, Western armies conduct modern warfare in a dynamic environment composed of flexible and multiple threats in which civilians form a substantial part. Studying Clausewitz provides current military and political leadership useful insights to understand twenty-first century warfare. He explains the nature of war, provides an analytical tool to understand the chaos of warfare, and he argues for well educated and adaptable leadership capable of creative thinking. Although he died before his work was complete, his writing style was ambiguous and unclear at some moments, and current technology reduced some of his tactics obsolete, his work still arouses and inspires military and political strategists and analysts.
Much confusion has arisen from misinterpretation of Clausewitz’s discussions on Schwerpunkt or “center of gravity”. Many students of military theory interpret Clausewitz’s ideas through their own historical perspectives. For example, military officers tend to confuse military objectives for centers of gravity, assuming physical objects such as ships or cities are the source of a countries power. While these objects may provide tactical advantages, true power arises from the critical strengths possessed by a country, be they political, diplomatic, military, or informational. The Argentinean military junta made similar mistakes during their invasion of the Falklands. Without fully understanding the source of British power in the region, the Argentineans attacked military objectives, while missing British centers of gravity. Because they failed to analyze the critical factors and capabilities of both the enemy and themselves, they were doomed to failure from the outset of the mission.
Even though many credit St. Augustine with founding the just war theory, this view is partially misleading. Augustine synthesized ideas from classical Greco-Roman and Christian philosophy to construct his theory, so credit can also be given to philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero. Since then, it has been modified by many notable thinkers such as St. Thomas Aquinas, Hugo Grotius, and Francisco Suarez (Orend). Technicalities aside, Augustine was a pivotal figure in developing our contemporary understanding of this tradition (Massaro 70).
War is a howling, roaring creature, using its power to ignite destructive and fatal consequences among the masses. Conflicts have risen between nations yet no one seems to understand what breeds the conflict. While destruction may be the end, deception is its mean. War ...
Sun Tzu and Clausewitz approach the “Art of War” from very different perspectives and levels of detail. However, it is clear that both theorists recognize that war in practice is not a black and white affair. Sun Tzu states, “In the art of war there are no fixed rules.” Both theorists structure their works in such a manner as to require the reader to view them as they should view war. First, from the strategic point of view (i.e., the theory of war) and then from the tactical aspect (i.e., the practice of war), it forces the reader to engage in a critical analysis that is required of any successful battlefield commander.