Carl Von Clausewitz’s work in On War, remains just as relevant in modern day military strategy as it was in the past. His main points, on differences between absolute war and real war, and how war is a continuation of policy controlled by the “trinity”, will help any military or political leader avoid pitfalls when planning for today’s challenges. The theory of absolute war can aid military and political leaders understand the basic concepts of war, and their applicability in war gaming and creating military strategies. Moreover, the reality of war, aids leaders to understand war as a continuation of state policy, with the political aims being controlled by the trinity. The trinity is made up of the people, the government, and the military. …show more content…
While factoring the means of an enemy force deals with numbers, the strength of will is much less easy to determine and can only be gauged approximately by the strength of the motive animating it, i.e. the hostile intent of the enemy. Once these two factors are estimated, an attacker or defender will adjust their efforts to overcome the other. Consequently, absolute war is an act of force and strength with no logical limit to the amount of force or strength that can be used. Any inclination to introduce moderation of force into theory is a logical absurdity. This type of war leads to extremes and zero-sum resolutions: Both sides will try and duplicate the force and strength of the other and continue to fight until the other is destroyed which is central to the very idea of …show more content…
The most relevant example is on the United States War on Terror. After the 9/11 attacks, the Bush Administration established the political aims to disrupt, deter, and dismantle the terror network Al-Qaeda, located inside Afghanistan. To achieve this political goal, the other links in the trinity began to support each other. The Military, in turn, supplied the strategy to compel the Afghani government to cease its support of terrorism, thus achieving the Bush Administration’s political objectives. The people, impassioned by the recent attacks, guided public opinion of the political aims and accepted the military strategy that would achieve the political objective of disrupting terrorism. All three links of the trinity worked in tandem, delivering a successful political objective of dismantling Al-Qaeda inside
In the 17th century, before the Seven Years’ War, the common soldier was just an unpaid citizen who fought for the local militia with his own weapon, but the Seven Years’ War totally changed in military system. The Seven Years’ War was very significant because it forced all of the European countries to focus less on commerce and more territory. This new shift in focus is what caused Britain to send so many more troops to America; the British politicians believed it was vital to militarize their colonies like America, West Africa, and Asia. This is because they believed that soldiers could acquire and defend new territories, as well as build important structures as a cheap
Is it true Americans are rightfully notorious for creating inaccurate paradigms of what really happened in historical events Americans are tied to? Has America ever censored historical events in order to protect Americans innocent democratic reputation? After reading, “The Best War Ever” by Michael C.C Adams, I have found the answers to these questions to be yes. Some of the myths that Adams addresses in his book include: 1. America was innocent in world war two and was an ever acting protagonist in the war; 2. World war two or any war for that matter can be, or is a “good war” and bring prosperity to America; 3. War world two brought unity to Americans.
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.
An article called, “The Real War,” written by Roger J. Spiller, begins with a quote by Walt Whitman, “The real war will never get in the books.” The author writes about an interview with Paul Fussell, who was a soldier in World War Two and has written many books about World War One and World War Two. Fussell is very opinionated and critical about other books written about these wars, asserting they are not realistic or portray the true essence of what really occurred by soldiers and other people participating in the wars. I claim that it is impossible to convey the actual personal feelings and emotions of those involved in a war in books or any other forms of media.
Tim O’Brien states in his novel The Things They Carried, “The truths are contradictory. It can be argued, for instance, that war is grotesque. But in truth war is also beauty. For all its horror, you can’t help but gape at the awful majesty of combat” (77). This profound statement captures not only his perspective of war from his experience in Vietnam but a collective truth about war across the ages. It is not called the art of combat without reason: this truth transcends time and can be found in the art produced and poetry written during the years of World War I. George Trakl creates beautiful images of the war in his poem “Grodek” but juxtaposes them with the harsh realities of war. Paul Nash, a World War I artist, invokes similar images in his paintings We are Making a New World and The Ypres Salient at Night. Guilaume Apollinaire’s writes about the beautiful atrocity that is war in his poem “Gala.”
World War I was a very deadly war with over 100 million human casualties(deaths plus injured). Therefore war is a very transformative event for humanity, because it always affects individuals, societies, and even the world in a pessimistic way.
“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.
Review of "War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning" 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 concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all the 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 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.
“A pretty summer day, every member of a rural village attends a yearly drawing in which everyone's name is entered. Because of its belief in an ancient superstition in which human sacrifice ensures good crops, the community stones the "winner" of the lottery, Tess Hutchinson.” “The Lottery” by Shirley Johnson is a short story used to induce the ineffectiveness of following traditions blindly and demonstrates a subjective loss of a human being in order to ensure the survival of others. Having thought of “The Lottery” one can relate it to an ethical theory called “Utilitarianism Theory”. Utilitarianism is a consequentialist ethical theory determined on maximizing the inclusive good. This theory confronts our well being by choosing the action that maximizes utility and the one that brings happiness to the majority of people while exploiting minorities. Utilitarianism is a normative theory that judges the action by how much of pleasure or pain it brings. However, some individuals would refuse to abide by the utilitarianism’s principles by criticizing the theory on several levels ranging from violating ones right, impartial decision makers, immeasurability, ignore justice, tyranny of the majority.
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.
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)
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...