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.
The Vietnam War: A Concise International History is a strong book that portrays a vivid picture of both sides of the war. By getting access to new information and using valid sources, Lawrence’s study deserves credibility. After reading this book, a new light and understanding of the Vietnam war exists.
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"
War termination and the decision of when to negotiate peace are rarely effectively planned before a war. The Russo-Japanese War is one of a few historical exceptions. The Russo-Japanese War provides three enduring lessons about war termination in a conflict fought for limited aims. First, the most effective war termination plans are created before the war. Second, continued military and political pressure can effectively improve your position to negotiate peace. Third, common interests and compromise are required for durable peace.
A popular military aphorism stated by Earnest Hemmingway was, “Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.” With the ongoing troubles of the Cold War and rising tension along the 38th Parallel that split the...
Airpower inevitably changed the characteristics and the environment for outcome of wars. Theorists contend that war results from drastic changes in the international security environment, diplomacy, domestic politics, ideology, economics, and revolutionary advances in technology. Clausewitz emphasized, “Each period would have hold to its own theory”. Douhet wrote, "Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur." Airpower technology changed everything. Airpower can exploit speed, range, and flexibility better than land and sea forces. War may be the realm of chance, as Clausewitz advises but victory or defeat are not recorded as random outcomes. “There is an approach to war that maximizes the prospect of the achievement of decisive victory (whatever outcome one decides is sufficiently decisive and adequately victorious).” As warfare expands to new domains, it must continue to look back at military theory to develop effective
...l the deaths that occurred in this war, only succeeded to destroy a nation, taking them away from their goal.
The war strategies of Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine Henri de Jomini are not mutually exclusive philosophies. Clausewitz’s “Trinity of War”, “war as an extension of politics”, and the “unpredictability of war” speak more so to the upper, strategic and political ranges of war. Jomini addresses the operational and tactical levels in the lower ranges of war with his definition of strategy and his “Fundamental Principle of War”. So if one views their work collectively rather than as competitors, the two philosophies complement each other by addressing different segments of the spectrum of war.
“War is a matter of vital importance to the State; It is matter of life and death, survival or ruin” Sun Tzu knows war leads to disaster sometimes it is better to avoid war and win by deception. When the American commander and the Vietnamese general met to end the Vietnam War. The American commander stated I could have defeated you in a direct battle but the Vietnam commander states but we won the war. (A&E)
The only winners of war are the people who survive it. War brings many hardships and challenges even to ordinary people who are not involved in the war. The war can bring divided families, the people who are related to each other and known the others better than anybody else to fight and argue, eventually dividing the family apart. War also brings clash of generation, a fight between the young and the old just to make a point. Principle and the reality of the war also plays a huge part in the war, the idea between dreams and the truth of the war. War is futile, as it only brings death and misery to the people.
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.
The American Revolutionary war (1775-1800C.E) is considered to be amongst the defining wars in the history of the world. In this war, the colonies of North America fought for independence from their British rulers. This resulted in the creation of United States, a country which after its formation played a major role in the affairs of the world. Moreover, the Revolutionary war, was the first to be declared the “Colonial war of liberation” as well as the “people’s war” as per Stephen Conway, in the twentieth century . Furthermore, this war is considered to be the “longest armed conflict” in the history of the United States, after the Vietnam War. Thus, the question arises: how were the Americans able to defeat the militarily superior British? In order to answer this we must look at the strengths and weaknesses of both sides. Although, British strength was, that they were a superpower, their overconfidence and underestimation of the Americans played a role in their defeat, furthermore factors; monetary incentive to join the revolution, African American’s enlistment in the army, militia, French alliance, political mobilization, guerrilla warfare and American motivation towards fighting for independence, were factors that were of great advantage to the Americans, which played a key role in their victory.
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.
...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.
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
War, in its purest form, is an act aimed at imposing one’s will over another’s. Throughout history, there is no lack of evidence to illustrate the importance of warfare and the effects of its aftermath. Ranging from its conduct and organization, to its influences on governance and the social contract paradigm, war has shaped the modern world. Nowhere in history; however, has the evolution of warfare had such long-lasting global affects than the practices found in western cultures. Described as the western way of war, armed conflict in western cultures reveals an undeniable linkage between war and political motive. From this understanding, one can appreciate the western way of war as more of a rational approach to warfare, focused on gaining a marked advantage over an adversary to achieve a deeper strategic goal. This then begs to question: how has the western way of war shaped conflicts, as historical actors endeavored to successfully enforce their will