Question 6: Clausewitz wrote “in war the result is never final.” Under what conditions and through what actions can belligerents make their victory more permanent? Carl Von Clausewitz theorized that “in war the result is never final” and that “the defeated state often considers the outcome as a transitory evil…” (Clausewitz, 80) There are many examples that support his theory that defeated belligerents will wait for another opportunity to achieve their objectives. There are also examples of belligerents who, under certain conditions and through deliberate actions, made their victory more permanent. Those belligerents who made their wartime victory more permanent did so with effective civil-military (civ-mil) relationships and with the popular support of the people. Under these conditions, they successfully reassessed and adapted during the conflict to ensure the effects of their operations led to conclusive war termination. The American Revolution is an outstanding example of how conditions in the American colonies and the actions that their civilian and military leadership took ensured their victory. During the American Revolution effective civ-mil relations enabled the colonists to prosecute the war in a manner that defeated the world’s greatest power. In addition to effective civ-mil relations, gaining popular amongst the American people was essential in conducting the protracted war. Assessing the effects of operations was also critical in earning independence from Great Britain. Early in the war, civ-mil relationships were strained since the Continental Congress “thought that their duty was to manage the details of [the war] themselves…” (Fischer, 144) Their direct involvement in military matters made conduct ... ... middle of paper ... ... termination, certain conditions must be in place and specific actions must be taken. As seen during the American Revolution and in Vietnam, effective civ-mil relations and popular support are two key conditions that must be met. In the American Revolution, Washington was given the necessary powers to direct war effort with support and oversight from the Continental Congress. During Vietnam, leaders in Hanoi had productive debates on how to implement their dau tranh strategy. In each case, the civilian and military leadership understood the importance of effective civ-mil relations as well as the importance of gaining popular support for their war effort. Under these conditions, these belligerents then effectively reassessed and adapted to ensure the effects of their operations led to conclusive war termination. They proved that in war, the results can final.
Clausewitz’s thoughts on war termination effectively summarize the situation for the Japanese and Russian Empires preceding peace negotiations, “Inability to carry on the struggle can, in practice, be replaced by two other grounds for making peace: the first is the improbability of victory; the second is its unacceptable cost.” (Clausewitz, 91). The Japanese effectively identified their culminating point of victory and predicted that continued success would be highly improbable. The Russian Empire had the means to eventually turn the tide of the war, but the cost to do this was unacceptable. As a result, both chose to negotiate peace while continuing to take steps to improve their negotiating position. The Russo-Japanese War highlights the Japanese Empire’s ability to effectively plan, execute and negotiate the termination of a war, despite being considered a vastly inferior power at the onset of war.
This book is the unbiased, detailed narrative of the war in chronological order. Summarized, this literary piece is an explanation of why the British lost the Revolutionary War. Christopher Hibbert explains the reasons behind their loss and provides supporting evidence as the War’s timeline progresses. One
The American defeat of the British during the Revolutionary War was a direct result of George Washington's incredible leadership and generalship which epitomized the greatness of Sun Tzu's "Art of War"
In the world’s lens during the 1760s, the British empire had a clear and prominent control over the colonies. However, by the mid-1770s the Americans became enraged enough to declare war against the British for independence. Due to Britain’s massive imperial presence around the globe, the British civilians had a strong inclination for a successful outcome. Instead, the colonists pulled a surprising victory from what should have been a swift defeat. While the British had an abundance of advantages, they lost the Revolutionary War because the British army underestimated the colonists’ perseverance for freedom.
The American Revolution was a conflict that arose from growing tensions between Great Britain and the Thirteen North American colonies. It was a long bloody war and one of the most well-known, and because of that it has many interpretations, and these interpretations have made it a challenge to be able to come to a single understanding of the war. In this week’s readings, two different views on the same war are given. The American Yawp describes the American colonies point of view on the revolution while the History Lesson discusses how British wanted to control America but instead drove them to rebel and fight for their independence. The colonists saw the war for their independence as a revolution, but through British eyes, events and people were, not surprisingly, seen quite differently.
...milar restrictions in their operations, and this ultimately led to the U.S. defeat. Perhaps if President Johnson and his politically oriented advisors would have listened to and followed the advice given by the military advisors actually in-theatre they would have been able to develop rules of engagement that aided supported the U.S. forces more fairly and allowed more freedom in tactics and thus resulting in the war being won. In the aftermath of this war US policy makers and in fact whole governments came to the same realisation. Once a situation has devolved to the point where war is seen to be the best action taken, the politics must be et aside and the proffessional war fighters be allowed to take the lead in order to gain a favorable outcome.
As an American observes the life around him, noting the many advancements made in merely the last century, he must wonder how America climbed to such a level. The 21st century technology, the military and political power, education and ethics, all came from such meager beginnings, solidified by the Revolutionary War. The Revolutionary War proved to be a significant turning point in the history of our country, but what caused America to win? What were some of the most significant factors in the victory of these American patriots? By examining these three particular factors, America’s military assets, it’s aid from other countries, and its own spirit of independence, one’s understanding of the Revolutionary War, an essential root of this nation, is truly increased.
...e to allow for victory despite a disadvantaged fighting posture. However, hope is not a solid strategy for victory and the lessons of the past should be learned, understood, and implemented into current doctrine.
The televised draft, the battle, and the mass deaths that seemed so very meaningless. There is of course also the fact that the one to remain standing isn’t ever actually a “winner”. After seeing the things that occurred in the competition, the victor is irrevocably changed.
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”.
The American Revolution was sparked by a myriad of causes. These causes in themselves could not have sparked such a massive rebellion in the nation, but as the problems of the colonies cumulated, their collective impact spilt over and the American Revolution ensued. Many say that this war could have been easily avoided and was poorly handled by both sides, British and American; but as one will see, the frame of thought of the colonists was poorly suited to accept British measures which sought to “overstep” it’s power in the Americas. Because of this mindset, colonists developed a deep resentment of British rule and policies; and as events culminated, there was no means to avoid revolution and no way to turn back.
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...
War is calamitous, war is corrosive, and war has eradicated the strongest of states. Empires have been defeated by war, ancient civilizations have been destroyed and dissipated, yet, war has remained a weapon of political propaganda for centuries. War has “[...] kill[ed] people, destroy[ed] resources, retard[ed] economic development, ruin[ed] environments, spread disease[s], expand[ed] governments, militarize[d] societies, reshape[d] cultures, disrupt[ed] families, and traumatize[d] people.” (Levy & Thompson, 2010, p. 1) It is the most destructive form of human behavior, a social demeanor that undermines the sovereignty and security of a state, a conduct that can change the global hegemony instantaneously, but likewise, a bearing that is imperative to humanity and the political realm.
The West and the Soviet have different perceptions of the purpose and outcome of war. From the Soviet’s perspective, victory is only possible when their nuclear and non-nuclear forces are more superior than those of the West especially the United States. Victory means that “Western political and economic systems would liquidate and the
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.