Military planners cannot rely on any one historical theorist's insights when examining past or current warfare. The dynamics of global conflict will enviably shift toward the nation or state with the best ideas. Military planners must not only have superior tactics, we must have the best strategy. For this reason the two theories, scientific (Jomini) and Clausewitzitan, offer ingredients to strengthen military planning and analysis undergoing dynamic change in the 21st Century.
The two distinct approaches to the study of war provide a lens of analysis, one practical and focused on the physical realm, the other philosophical and focused on the moral and mental realms. We have two different schools of thought regarding the nature and purpose
…show more content…
Clausewitz stated, “War is a continuation of politics by other means.” Clausewitz approach is flexible, adaptive, and comprehensive whole of government options to deal with the unpredictability of war. Both Clausewitz and Jomini acknowledged that although warfare seems simple, waging it is not and it is important to determine which kind of war. For example, some of the strategic innovations during the later days of the European Theater bombing campaign highlighted elements of war entail more than just physical fighting and decisive points. Clausewitz view impacted the understanding of war as an instrument of policy. The allies came to an understanding that the tool of war was one of many tools to deal with adversaries. This is a very important distinction between Clausewitzian and Scientific thinking. When determining the kind of war to affect intended policy outcomes, strategy practitioners must understand the nested intentions of military strategy to that of the political or national …show more content…
The one constant in war is the gauantee of uncertainty or chaos. Thus, the Clausewitzian theory encourages questions to unveil the answers to war's perplexing issues rather than provide the answers themselves. His theory is meant to be an intellectual stimulant, not a operation manual.
The opposite of the scientific linear theory is Clausewitz aspects of nonlinear science. One of the nonlinear dynamics is the chaos theory. “Chaos results when a system is nonlinear and sensitive to initial conditions.” Chaotic systems have raised some fundamental questions about relationships among order, randomness, and predictability. Clausewitz stresses that the logic of war in the abstract, with its limitless escalation of cost and effort, there are always constraints on human action. Thus, chaos causes friction with scientific
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
Before in the introduction, the essay introduced limited war and total war, and there is a difference between the two wars. Limited war is war with restriction such as weapon usage (not using nuclear weapons) and territories involved. A limited war follows the ‘Just War Theory’, while total war is solely meant on pure obliteration of opposing side.
For the great lesson which history imprints on the mind…is the tragic certainty that all wars gain their ultimate ends, whether great or petty, by the violation of personality, by the destruction of homes, by the paralysis of art and industry and letters…even wars entered on from high motives must rouse greed, cupidity, and blind hatred; that even in defensive warfare a people can defend its rights only by inflicting new wrongs; and that chivalrous no less than self-seeking war entails relentless destruction.
“Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.
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 just war theory allows for war to be declared in response to a case of substantial aggression; however, this is a vague term. To establi...
It is interesting and even surprising that the two major strategies regarding war were developed by European contemporaries of the late eighteenth and nineteenth century. Antoine Henri de Jomini (1779-1869) approached his philosophy of war in a structured, scientific manner. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831) took a more fluid, open-ended approach to his philosophy of war. The fact that they lived during the same time period in Europe is also fascinating in that they likely knew of each others’ writings as well as potentially influenced and were influenced by the philosophy of the other. Jomini’s scientific approach is more applicable to the tactical and operational levels of war while Clausewitz approaches war as more of an art or interaction between people that is more appropriate to the strategic and political levels of war. Although their two war strategies are presented as opposing strategies, by comparing concepts from each of the theorists to the other theorist’s work shows that they are actually more complementary than competing in that they are addressing different levels of war. The concepts to be evaluated are Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as a continuation of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” as well as Jomini’s definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”.
Carl von Clausewitz, “What is War?” On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 89-112. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.
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)
...nt variables. It can deal with the interests within a country and interests out of it. It can occur due to ideological differences or religious differences. It can occur due to a power grab, and in the cases of a failed brinkmanship, can be a complete accident. Each war throughout history has its own unique set of reasoning for occurring, which makes studying the causation of war so fascinating: in every war you study, you are guaranteed to find so many unique characteristics that it possesses.
War is a universal phenomenon, it is a violent tool people use to accomplish their interests. It is not autonomous, rather policy always determines its character. Normally it starts when diplomacy fails to reach a peaceful end. War is not an end rather than a mean to reach the end, however, it does not end, and it only rests in preparation for better conditions. It is a simple and dynamic act with difficult and unstable factors which make it unpredictable and complex. It is a resistant environment where the simplest act is difficult to perform. In this paper, I will argue why war is a universal phenomenon and what are the implications of my argument to strategists.
Von Clausewitz, Carl. On War. Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.