All throughout mankind, war has been seen as inevitable: war is readily natural to human beings’, and it inclination is naturally a habituated mechanism that humans being possess. Even though the act of war has remained the same, so has strategic studies, and the logic behind it. The foundation of strategic studies is to understand the basis of war, to allow the person to be analytical and to be thorough enough to be strategically prepared. The fascination of war is beyond our reach, due to, our obsession on how to be victorious. Strategic studies is a human interaction and because the conduct of war has not changed, strategist have embarked this study to understand human perspectives, Baylis, John, James J. Wirtz, and Colin S. Gray notes …show more content…
With this being said, it’s important to understand the difference between strategic theory and strategic studies. Thomas G. Mahnken talks about strategic studies in an article called Strategic Theory, in this article he discusses what strategic theory is, and how it provides information on how “strategy is ultimately about how to win wars.” Strategy is using the means of war to gain political advantage, to use the military to fulfil the ends of a policy. With the creation of nuclear weapons Thomas G. Mahnken explains that “strategic theory expanded to include peacetime military competition, such as the four-decade cold war between the United States and Soviet Union.” The cold war between both countries proved what the political context was: both nations knew what was being at stake and had an understanding of what had to be done. After the cold war, strategic theory took a different route and it emerged out as strategic studies in retrospect after the cold war. Strategic studies is completely different from strategic theory and Columba Peoples assess in their article, Strategic Studies and its Critic, that strategic studies offers the “legitimation of strategic violence for the purpose of maintaining a particular vision of world order, and this vision reflects the geographical-political context.” Strategic studies is the discipline in which it attempts to construct the world through a “western set of values and geopolitical vision” Unlike strategic theory, strategic studies prefers to have a view of the world than to actually start a war, but if the world is not following the western values then violence will be asserted in order to fulfill the political
The Cold War was a period of dark and melancholic times when the entire world lived in fear that the boiling pot may spill. The protectionist measures taken by Eisenhower kept the communists in check to suspend the progression of USSR’s radical ambitions and programs. From the suspenseful delirium from the Cold War, the United States often engaged in a dangerous policy of brinksmanship through the mid-1950s. Fortunately, these actions did not lead to a global nuclear disaster as both the US and USSR fully understood what the weapons of mass destruction were capable of.
Throughout history there have been few military theorists who have influenced military thinking. The military revolution that occurred during the American Civil War changed the face of warfare. The theories of both Antione-Henri Jomini and Carl von Clausewitz, the two most prominent military theorists of the 19th Century, can be seen in many aspects of the conflict. While Jomini’s tactics played a large role on the battlefield, the strategic concepts of Carl Von Clausewitz best characterize the nature of the Civil War. The writings of Clausewitz proved prophetic in three distinct areas: the strength of the defense over the offense, the concept of “Total War” used by General Grant, and the theory of war as an extension of policy.
Vasquez, John A. "The Probability of War, 1816-1992. Presidential Address to the International Studies Association, March 25, 2002, New Orleans." International Studies Quarterly 48.1 (2004): 1-27. Print.
John F. Kennedy once famously said, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” It has been said a few decades ago but the theme of war is relevant at all times. One might share Kennedy’s point of view, when another one not. The most obvious example of different views and approaches on how to deal with conflicts are of the Western and Eastern civilizations. The Western is focused on physical aggressiveness and getting things done through power and coercion, while the Eastern approach is more philosophical, rational, and strategic. We see such method of approach in Sun Tzu’s military treatise, “The Art of War.” Even though he wrote a manual on how to defeat an enemy, Sun Tzu emphasized that a large portion of success is based on the army’s moral duty, which is cultivated by incentives, leaders’ examples, and the ability to listen to their soldiers.
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.
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”.
Human nature will always corrupt the mind of modern man and send him down the destructive path of war. Due to this, the chronology of war is a constant stream of events that have dated back to the creation of civilization. The inevitability of it is based off something within the mind, that we call human nature. This phoneme pulls the attentions of man towards the path of greatest gain in the quickest amount of time. A part of this is due to mans greed to obtain as much power as possible. Power doesn’t hold one meaning however, it can be broken down into many aspects of appeal for man, creating even more of attraction. Whether the individual in control is seeking power through wealth, through control, or dominance their means of obtaining it includes war or destruction.
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...
The possible employment of nuclear weapons between the two superpowers during the Cold War was unprecedented. The power of this stalemate shattered the paradigm of warfare and demonstrated how significant this military revolution’s effects were even at the mere threat of nuclear weapons use. Regarding this standoff between t...
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)
“A prince, therefore, must not…take anything as his profession but war…” these are the words of Nicollo Machiavelli and which he exclaims very clearly in his philosophies, that a good ruler must be great at the art war to succeed. One of the ways M shows his outlook on war, is by explaining how important it is to bear arms at all times and to never be without a weapon, for weapons are the tools of war and if used correctly and intelligently you will prevail over all during times of war. Secondly, M explains that a necessary induced order, unity, and fealty to the leader of a nation by projected and incited fear of that leader or leadership is the only way a leader can be looked can be respected by his own military. Moreover, with the respect of that military, a leader must have a good knowing of his home terrain in order to plan both offensive and defensive actions, and also to know history of great past leaders bouts with other countries, for this knowledge gai...
The definiton of war will never change. Its ideal prupose throughly is to cause pain of those who go through it or who are somehow involved. Through my prespective, I believe we need less hostility and use other inititatives and methods of reasoning and resolving problems rather than create brutality and increase death in this world. This book, its descriptions, but most importantly, Erich Maria Remarque, has significantly suceeded in emphasizing an in-dept overlook and understandment of what the outcome of war turns out to be which can also be associated with its supporting literature. We cannot prove anything through war; the only thing we have proven is how low us humans in general have sunk in resolving conflicts. Anybody has the potential power to kill someone through a simple pull of a trigger.
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...
All living things need the resources provided by our natural world to live, leading to them adapting to specific environments. Animals in particular are mobile creatures that move from place to place searching for the best environments for their survival. The most intelligent creatures in our animal world are human beings and like other animals, they moved from place to place while organized into races in search of the elusive desirable environments. However, there is always the likelihood of finding fellow humanity already thriving in that environment. This resulted to conflict as competition for the inadequate resources arose. Consequently, human beings formed nations, allegiance to the national system meant loyalty to the governance, and regions and they formed military groups to defend their resources. However, the military warfare has changed with international understanding, though the idea still rests heavily on fight for resources. Further, international politics illustrates the causes and effects of modern military war have changed due to chan...