Clausewitz
by Dr. Sorin ~ August 31st, 2010. Filed under: Reasons for war.Any thoughts about Clausewitz’s theory of war? Are there any ideas in the section we just read that we can consider relevant today?
Any thoughts about Clausewitz’s theory of war? Are there any ideas in the section we just read that we can consider relevant today?
September 1st, 2010 at 11:15 am
Clausewitz points out that war is an extension of political motives, which of course is still relevant today, and will continue to be indefinitely. I thought it was interesting for him to make this distinction, because we tend to see war almost as an event, encompassing political motives, rather than as just the separate violent entity of political action. By separating war from the overall motives of action, we are able to see war strictly as the battle element of conflict and not as the entire conflict.
September 1st, 2010 at 4:11 pm
“War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale.”
Like discussed in class on Tuesday, I very much liked the ideology that war is like a culmination of duels in a theater.
Yes, I agree that war is an extension of political motives and that it encompass those aspects, but at the same time, we also see individuals being highlighted in the news and around the theater.
In the history books, we see war for it’s beginning and it’s end, but in the day to day, we see the lives and deaths of soldiers remembered. I like how Clausewitz reminds us of that fact.
And I believe that today especially, (after scrolling through the news) we truly recognize the acts of individuals. We use them as models of inspiration and understanding, and it can be an array of people, anyone from a president or politician to a solider or civilian. I think it’s great.
Every small victory is an achievement to the greater picture.
September 1st, 2010 at 7:58 pm
In response to the first comment, I don’t think the distinction between war and its political motives is the point of Clausewitz’s writings. If anything, he is urging his readers to understand that the two are very much related, with the battlefield element as an extension of the political conflict. After all, the 24th point of the first chapter of Book I is entitled, “War is a mere continuation of policy by other means” and concludes with the statement that “political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.” I don’t think it’s about the distinction between the two but instead about their inherent relation because without the political conflict, the war itself would not exist.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:26 am
Perhaps I didn’t communicate my thoughts as clearly as I intended. What I mean is that I, personally, when thinking of the word “war,” consider all the aspects of conflict, whether physical or not. Therefore in war, I include politics, media, and battle, etc. I just thought that it was interesting that Clausewitz, in his 24th point, clearly defined that political view is the object, [and] war as the means.” Of course they are related, and are codependent, but I feel that too often war is generalized to encompass both these elements as one, and Clausewitz characterizes them and combines them in a different way.
September 2nd, 2010 at 7:30 am
* “political view is the object, [and] war as the means.”
September 2nd, 2010 at 11:58 am
As everyone mentioned already about the theory of political views as a meaning of war. I would have to agree with that in the sense of our lives today. As we talked about in class about the three reasons for war. I can see more clearly the political motive in which we are in War today. What I mean is when the war of Iraq started the motive was anger, hatred from the people which lead to the spark. But it was the political motive that used that spark to engage in war. So what I mean is that their all connected to each other.
Also to engage in what we learned in class today of the Fog of War. I believe that today in Iraq is like a “Fog of War”. We went into this war with an expectation of looking like a hero saving this country but it backfired. We engaged blindly. Intelligence is part of what Clausewitz mentions that we should have for war. And knowing your enemy is important in order to be prepared for a war.
September 2nd, 2010 at 3:49 pm
In reference to “Fog of War”, looking back into the world history of wars, it seems that the “fog” is essential and at the same time inevitable in any war. For no matter how well one’s intelligence operates, and no matter how well are one’s army equipped, there will always be uncertainty in the air, if not for anything else, simply because people are not able to read other people’s minds. Another thing is the “density” of the “fog”, which can be deliberately adjusted to make things seem as desired. Mass media can very well be considered as one of the tools to use in this respect. Unfortunately, or perhaps for better, some may argue, many governments use the “Fog of War” not only in war, but also in-house in order to achieve their political goals.
September 3rd, 2010 at 11:11 am
In accordance with many of the comments that other people have made, Clausewitz’s emphasis on the significant role that political figures (not only political issues) play on the entire aspect of war is one that I found most interesting. As civilians, we entrust political figures to make the most reasonable and just decisions that will benefit our homeland but this is often times not the case due to several uncontrollable factors. The 22nd section of the chapter “What is War?” is entitled “How this accords best with the human mind in general”. Here Clausewitz comments on the fact that our minds are naturally drawn to the idea of uncertainty which translates into the way that important decisions are made during times of war. The idea that war is comparable to a fog is very much reasonable not only because one can not anticipate the actions of their enemy, but one’s own actions are unpredictable as well. Even in the video clip that we watched in class, “Fog of War”, Robert McNamara comments on how impulsive many of his decisions were at the time and while he was placed there to make rational and right decisions, he did anything but that. All of this was just really ironic to me and made me question the justifications of war even more.
September 4th, 2010 at 11:04 am
I agree with Joezette to a great extent, especially on “The idea that war is comparable to a fog is very much reasonable not only because one can not anticipate the actions of their enemy, but one’s own actions are unpredictable as well.”
The aspect about the military genius required to lead a war stood out to me most in the comparison between On War and the Fog of War, and it was fascinating to note how our leaders failed to have that genius in this instance; they either lacked a quality Cluasewitz attributes to a genius military general, or just didn’t seem to have full use of their mental of their faculties to make the right decisions.
Major General Curtis Lemay was highly capable as a military general, but not genius. He was courageous, impulsive, and intuitive, all things Clausewitz points out in military genius, but he was also belligerent, and obstinate, and Causewitz calls obstinancy a “fault of the heart.” It presents passion and feelings where the rationale should react instead. It clouds the mind, creates a fog–LeMay was more concerned with victory, no matter the stakes, and took rapid action without debate. And according to Clausewitz, “Owing to the rapid movement of their feelings, it is doubly difficult for men of this description to preserve the equilibrium of the mind; therefore they frequently lose head, and that is the worst phase in their nature as respects the conduct of war.”
Lieutenant Colonel Robert McNamara was similarly capable in his position, but he was also not genius. McNamara thought in political terms, and as a civilian, and couldn’t separate such a perspective from the brutal tactics on the battlefield. This could have been a positive trait except for the fact that he was also powerless to act in any other way than to follow LeMay; he was his subordinate. According to Clausewitz, “An immense space lies between a general, that is, one at the head of a whole war, or of a theatre of war, and his second in command, for the simple reason that the latter is in more immediate subordination to a superior authority and supervision, consequently is restricted to a more limited sphere of independent thought.”
In retrospect, McNamara feels guilt for his inability to act or sway LeMay and calls both himself and the latter criminals of war. In retrospect, things always are clearer, in retrospect, there no longer is a fog.
September 4th, 2010 at 5:23 pm
The idea I find most interesting about Clausewitz is that his theory that determination is following your beliefs. He believes that the definition of determination is having a gut instinct and the courage to follow it, and that if you are determined then you follow what you believe is right even if you don’t really know if it is. Clausewitz makes the decision that a military General has to not only have intelligence but determination as well, and I whole heartedly agree. I think that one expects a General to be cold and hard in his decision making, and not let his feelings get in the way. This is the picture I think most people paint of Generals, that obstinacy does not get in their way.
In connection to this is that fabulous “Fog of War” metaphor that I think just describes the feeling of being in the heat of battle perfectly. I have never personally experienced this, but I think that when you think of soldiers in war, one tends to think of fast paced movements and thinking which leads to fast decision-making which may or not be for the best. Generals are expected to make these types of decisions, so if they let their emotions get in the way of their decisions then they might not be able to be determined and go with their gut feeling because they would be worried of the effects of their decisions. This is basically what I feel was being discussed in the documentary we saw by Morris, whether McNamar’s decisions in the war were out of determination or obstinacy.
June 21st, 2012 at 1:54 pm
I’ve been browsing on-line more than three hours these days, but I never discovered any fascinating article like yours. It is pretty worth sufficient for me. In my view, if all site owners and bloggers made excellent content as you did, the internet will be a lot more useful than ever before.
October 3rd, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thanks Nevertheless I am experiencing problem with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting an identical rss downside? Anyone who is aware of kindly respond. Thnkx
November 14th, 2012 at 10:48 am
Thanks for the suggestions shared on your own blog. Yet another thing I would like to mention is that weight reduction is not exactly about going on a dietary fad and trying to get rid of as much weight as you’re able in a couple of days. The most effective way to shed weight is by taking it bit by bit and right after some basic ideas which can make it easier to make the most through your attempt to shed weight. You may understand and already be following some of these tips, yet reinforcing knowledge never damages.
February 2nd, 2013 at 9:53 pm
Oh my goodness! an incredible article dude. Thanks However I am experiencing problem with ur rss . Don’t know why Unable to subscribe to it. Is there anybody getting identical rss drawback? Anybody who knows kindly respond. Thnkx