Clausewitz: Comparing Two Types Of War

The idea of warfare tries to help us discover how we may proceed to physically force or gain material advantage of the opposition at a starting point. However, it is not always considered possible, this theory can teach us how to calculate moral factors, and anticipate the mistakes the enemy will make. Clausewitz’s definition implies that war does not lead to the destruction of the enemy but rather the survival of the enemy to its will. Clausewitz’s definition implies that war does not lead to the destruction of the enemy but rather the survival of the enemy to its will. What Clausewitz is saying is that Public opinion influences military doctrine; military’s will influences public opinion While the Military strategy influences political objectives; government influences military resources.
Clausewitz differentiates between what war looks like in theory. By comparing this theoretical version of war with reality, Clausewitz’s purpose is to identify how and why these two types of war differ. The two types are war in theory and war the reality is war is messy and
It is easier to prevent the other side from getting what you already have than to acquire something new. In the context of civil wars, insurgencies, and terrorists, non-state actors predominantly engage in defensive strategies that stretch out the length of the war until the state eventually capitulates; continuing the war for a long time is unpopular, costly, and not worth the risk. Offensive strategies are a good way to increase your power or gain territory, but require a lot of resources and risk higher costs to win. The difference between war in theory and war is that the former is fought until the enemy is completely disarmed, but war is often frequently interrupted and ends without completely defeating the enemy. To fight the enemy, Clausewitz argues armies can choose either offensive or defensive strategies of