What Is a Clausewitzian Definition of War - Essay Example

What is a Clausewitzian definition of war? Table of Contents Introduction 3 Clausewitzian Definition of War 4 Key Ideas included in the Treaty on War4 Major Key Points Included in the Definition by Clausewitz 9 Antithesis regarding the definition by Clausewitz 10 Conclusion 13 References 14 Bibliography 15 Introduction Since the initiation of human civilization, human race has fought for land, food and wealth. With the advancement of the race, the issues of religion and safeguarding the rights and privileges of a community also became predominant factor for war. However gruesome, disillusioned or shameful the term war might have been, it has always continued to be an inevitable phenomenon in human civilization. Various diplomats and political persons view the war in different light and their definition or purpose of executing such an activity is also different from each other. To some, it is an act of glory while for others the same activity appears as a gory to them. Carl Philipp von Clausewitz was a soldier from Prussia. He is acknowledged as a great military historian and military theorist. He is mostly famous for his military treatise known by the name of Vom Kriege translated into English as ‘On War’. His theories documented in this book make him the author of one of the most celebrated contemporary theories upon war. Although Clausewitz participated in many wars, yet he always retained his interest in examining military theories and war tactics. Clausewitzian definition of war encapsulated in his famous ‘On War’ is a systematic, careful and philosophical examination of war in all its perspectives of both the way he saw it and he was being taught. On War is considered as the west’s premier document throwing light on the philosophy of the war. His contentions regarding war and the art of ware fare was so detailed and carefully sorted out that he could only finish a part of the treaty at the time of his death. Clausewitz revised the document in the year 1827 and just before his death he added some more thoughts into the portion dealing with counter - insurgency and different forms of war apart from the War Between the States. Clausewitz and Tolstoy both were much influenced by the events of the Napoleonic era. Clausewitzian Definition of War Clausewitz rendered a long intricate definition of war based on his first hand observation and experience that he gathered during the French revolution and Napoleonic era .The definition of war given by Clausewitz does not only throws light on the considerable historical research into the war,. It also reshaped the Clausewitz’s strong interest in art, science and education. Clausewitz defined war as “nothing but a duel in an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” (Grimsley, n.d.). Key Ideas included in the Treaty on War There are different perspectives of the Clausewitzian definition of war. Carl von Clausewitz further defines as “… continuation of policy with other means”. Since the publication of the treaty “On War” by Clausewitz, the definition of the war has been thoroughly misinterpreted by military theorists and diplomats of the world. Antoine Henri of Clausewitz’s time has the clear grasp about the definition rendered by him. According to Grimsley, “War is a continuation of policy with other means” implies that violence and bloodshed are just “other means” by which the further policy is carried forward. Policy according to Clausewitz is directed by three components of states. These are as follows: The political Leadership, the Operational Forces (Armed Forces) and the population. Clausewitz sums up or clubs these three essential factors to and by the state as ‘trinity’ (Grimsley, n.d.). Different facets or key ideas included in the Clausewitzian definition of war can be summed up as follows: War is utmost use of force The aim is to disarm the enemy War is utmost extension of powers Modification in the reality War is never an isolated act It does not contain a single instantaneous blow The result in war is never absolute The probabilities of real life take the place of the conceptions of the extreme and the absolute The political object now reappears A suspension in the action of war unexplained by anything said as yet There is only one because which can suspend the action, and this seems to be only possible on one side in any case Thus a continuation of action will ensue which will advance towards a climax Here, therefore the principle of polarity is brought into requisition Attack and defense are things differing in kind and of unequal force. Polarity is, therefore, not applicable to them The effect of polarity is often destroyed by the superiority of the Defense over the Attack, and thus the suspension of action in war is explained A second ground consists in the imperfect knowledge of circumstances Frequent inactions in war remove it further from the absolute, and make it still more a calculation of probabilities It therefore now only wants the element of chance to make of it a game, and in that element it is least of all deficient How this accords best with the human mind in general War is always a serious means for a serious object War is a mere continuation of policy by other means (Grimsley, n.d.). These points focus and contribute a large part to the exact understanding of the Clausewitz and definition of war. Clausewitz used a different and a unique method to establish his contentions regarding the theories of war. He used a dialectical method to construct his theory. Cristopher Bassford, professor of strategy at the National War College of the United States argues about the contentions put forwarded by Clausewitz. He describes that the main source of confusion about his approach is in his presentation of his dialectical method. Clausewitz’s famous contention says, “War is a mere continuation of politics by other means”. It is viewed as an antithetical statement in the dialectical argument where the thesis to the point described earlier in the statement which states that “war is nothing but a duel wrestling match, on a larger scale”. Moreover, the synthesis of his point lies more coherently in the ‘trinity’ of the thesis that he put forwarded. Another major point of confusion is regarding the Clausewitz’s theory of “total war”. Clausewitz was never a prophet of the total war in its absolute sense. His discussion regarding the “absolute war” or “total war” in the definition of the war is regarding the pure or platonic aspects of the war. Clausewitz stated something about the ideal of the war which he called “logical fantasy”. In reality war cannot be arranged in a limited way. Pragmatically, tough the competition between the opponents will compel them to use all their powers and methods at their disposal. As a matter of fact, the objectives in the military regime involved in the real war supporting one’s political objectives normally fall into two categories: “war to achieve limited aims” and war for “disarming” the enemy (Clausewitz, Et Al, 2007). The definition of war by Clausewitz contains volleys of historical facts that illuminates and supports his points of arguments and contentions. Ideals like Frederick II of Prussia and Napoleon the great were quite influential in forming his treaties of warfare. Among the myriad contentions and perspectives of the definition given by Clausewitz, three points forms the major focus for discussion in military forums since ages. These are: “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by the other means” (Clausewitz, 2007). War should not be viewed as a purpose to itself but rather it is a mere means of physical force compelling one’s will on the opponent. The military objectives of war which also supports political motives actually aims to make the enemy militarily impotent and helpless in political terms The general course of war leads to a tendency favoring any regime to employ more force and resources. This leads to a “total war” which means a complete pursuit of military victory without regarding the political consequences. This notion was implemented by the German leaders in the World War I (Clausewitz, Et Al, 2007). Major Key Points Included in the Definition by Clausewitz On War was published in the year 1832. Since the time of its publication, it has proved to be a classic study of the nature and conditions of warfare. The definition of war by Clausewitz documented in his famous book “On War” centers around few major points which are highly influenced by Clausewitz’s master Gerhard von Scharnhorst. These main points that are encapsulated in the definition do not form any exact order of importance, but each individual point is essential and percolates through the understanding of warfare which is eternal and applicable in all ages (Heuser, 2002). Clausewitz’s main points or key ingredients constituting his famous definition of war are as follows: He gave a dialectical approach to the analysis of military powers The approach is put forward through a method of “critical analysis” A thorough use of abuses of historical studies were implemented in the methodology The nature of the balance-of-power mechanism was widely discussed The clear relationship between military power and political objectives are made clear Clausewitz contended about the asymmetrical relationship between attack and defense The nature of “military genius” was discussed thoroughly The fascinating “trinity” concept of war forms the pivotal point of discussion The great philosophical differentiation between “absolute or ideal war” and “real war” The real war mechanism constituting the distinctive poles of a limited war and war to “render the enemy helpless” War belongs essentially to a social realm rather than falling into the realm of art or science In war, framing “strategy” essentially falls in to the regime of art “Tactics” in war belongs to the realm of science War is essentially unpredictable The “fog of war” “Friction” constitutes a major point in war In any war strategic and operational features forms the “centre of gravity” The “culminating point of the offensive” forms a major dialect in warfare The “culminating point of victory” is the resultant feature of any warfare and is equally essential to give a holistic form to the theories pertaining to warfare and war tactics. (Clausewitz & Rapoport, 1968). Antithesis regarding the definition by Clausewitz The dialectical method of constructing his argument leads to many misinterpretation of his definition. The modern perception of the western theories of warfare is based on the concepts of Clausewitz put forwarded in his book “On War”. The primary concepts or pillars of the theories pertaining to modern warfare tactics of the western world are all based on the Napoleonic premises and whether these premises falls into the Clausewitzian’s scheme of things are really debatable. The concept of dualism in the Clausewitz and view of war initially seems simple enough but few critics and commentators view “On War” as a doctrine which is crucial and based on variability. These critics argued that Clausewitz “really” argued that war for one end of the scale or the other. Some critics blame that the concept of “total war” is a complete failure and the major destructions in the World Wars became more inevitable due to this doctrine. Clausewitz and his followers were scathingly attacked by different critics. The competing theorist of Clausewitz’s era Antoine – Henri Jomini in the 19th century attacked Clausewitz and his theories. He was again contested by B.H. Liddell Hart in the mid 20th century and Martin van Creveld and John Keegan attacked Clausewitz in recent times. According to the historian of the twentieth century and basically Martin van Creveld “On War” is a doctrine rooted in purely in the world of state. The definition of war according to him leads to the diminishing the powers of state and Clausewitz takes the state “almost for granted”. This is said about Clausewitz more because rarely anything previous to Westphalia falls into his sight. The definition of Clausewitz fails to describe any facet of intra or supra-state conflict. For example, nothing was mentioned in his treaty regarding the rebellion. This is because he failed to account for the existence of state theoretically. Conflicts of previous kinds were labeled as criminal activities and without any legitimacy they were not denoted worthy to the label of “war”. However, all these theories contesting the definition of Clausewitz are partially correct. There are some evidence that strengthens the point that Clausewitz tried to widen the discussion regarding the war and warfare between the non-state actors. The revisions to the book dated in the year of 1827 and just before his death focused on the guerilla warfare and counter-insurgency and many other forms of war those fall to the commonplace war tactics (Jahn, 2006). Conclusion Clausewitz’s definition of war is complete and eternal to a wide term. We must remember that he never got the chance to see the modern warfare strategies and technology enabled warfare. The concept of state by Clausewitz, which is exposed to maximum criticism, is altogether different from the present day concept of state. The concept of “trinity” by Clausewitz which is condemned by Van Craved strongly consists of a more rigid statistic hierarchy encapsulating “People, Army and the Government”. But the fact is quite different from the condemnations. Clausewitz’s famous theory of “trinity” never puts forward the term people, government or army anywhere in the paragraph. Rather the Clausewitz and theory of “trinity” that leads to the course of real-war world in Clausewitz’s view are violent emotion, interplay of chance and probability and political motivation acting upon the reasoning. The definition of Clausewitz has served the military theorists and diplomats since ages and will surely continue enlightening the various facets of defense studies eternally. References Clausewitz, C., Et Al. On War. Oxford University Press, 2007. Clausewitz, C. On War. BN Publishing, 2007. Clausewitz, C. & Rapoport, A. On War, Volume 1. Babylon Dreams, 1968. Jahn, B. Classical Theory in International Relations. Cambridge University Press, 2006. Heuser, B. Reading Clausewitz. Pimlico, 2002. Grimsley, M. No Date. What is War? Carl von Clausewitzs Definition of War. Ohio State University. [Online] Available at: http://people.cohums.ohio-state.edu/grimsley1/h380/on_war.htm Accessed 05 January 2010]. Bibliography Burke, A. Iraq: Strategy’s Burnt Offering. Global Change, Peace & Security. 2005. Read More