Preview

Clausewitz in the 21st Century

Powerful Essays
Open Document
Open Document
5206 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Clausewitz in the 21st Century
Clausewitz lived in a time where battles were fought in columns and lines, with soldiers using muskets and solid-shot cannon; when states were the exclusive actors in war; when technological change occurred over decades, if not centuries. What relevance could his work therefore have for the strategic problems of the 21st century?

Introduction Clausewitz was not a cookbook writer. He was not looking for hard and fast rules for conducting war, which he eschews. Indeed, Clausewitzian theories elaborated at different periods of time are in close conjunction with the prevalent political, strategic, and military context, which is completely consonant with Clausewitz’s original conception of his own work:

‘Theory should be study, not doctrine […] It is an analytical investigation leading to a close acquaintance with the subject; applied to experience – in our case, to military history – it leads to thorough familiarity with it. The closer it comes to that goal, the more it proceeds from the objective form of a science to a subjective form of a skill, the more effective it will prove in areas where the nature of the case admits no arbiter but talent.’

‘Theory is meant to educate the mind of the future commander, or, more accurately, to guide him in his self-education, not to accompany him to the battlefield.’

If ‘the absurd difference between theory and practice’ is to be ended, then the correspondence between theory and practice implies the correspondence between the military commander and military thinker. Therefore, ‘self-education’ is important and useful to the military thinker too. He must not be bounded by a single theory of war but with the means to develop his own ideas (objective knowledge of war), fuelled by his talent (subjective capacity and application).
The phenomena of war are more diverse than ever: from terrorism to inter-state war, from information war to riots in rural areas, from air strikes to intifada. Loose networks of limited wars



Bibliography: 1. Andreas, H.-R. (2009). Clausewitz and a New Containment. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 283-307). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 2. Andreas, H.-R., & Antulio , E. (2007, December 27). Clausewitz in the Twenty First-Century: Primacy of Policy and a New Containment. From World Security Network: http://www.worldsecuritynetwork.com/showArticle3.cfm?article_id=14985 3 4. Antulio, E. I. (2003). Globalization and the Clausewitzian Nature of War. The European Legacy, 8/3, pp. 317-32. 5. Clausewitz, C. v. (1976). On War. In H. Michael, P. Peter, H. Michael, & P. Peter (Eds.). New Jersey: Princeton. 6. Durieux, B. (2009). Clausewitz and the Two Temptations of Modern Strategic Thinking. In S. Hew, & H. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 251- 265). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 7. Hammes, T. (2012, Spring). Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy. Infinity Journal, 2(2), pp. 10-14. 8. Hew, S., & Andreas, H.-R. (2009). Introduction. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 1-13). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 9. Antulio, E. (2009). Clausewitz and the Nature of the War on Terror. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 196-218). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. 10. Ken, B., & R., T. (1999). Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Region. London. 11. Metz, S. (1994). Clausewitz Homepage. From A Wake for Clausewitz: Toward a Philosophy of 21st-Century Warfare: http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Metz.htm 12 [ 2 ]. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, trans. and ed. Michael Howard and Peter Parat (Princeton, NJ, 1976), II, 2, p. 141. [ 5 ]. Ken, B., & R., T. (1999). Strategic Cultures in the Asia-Pacific Region. London. [ 6 ]. Durieux, B. (2009). Clausewitz and the Two Temptations of Modern Strategic Thinking. In S. Hew, & H. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 251- 265). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 10 ]. Hew, S., & Andreas, H.-R. (2009). Introduction. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 1-13). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 11 ]. Vom Kriege, ed. Werner Hahlweg (19th edn, Bonn, 1980), 1, 1, §28, pp. 212-213. [ 25 ]. Andreas, H.-R. (2009). Clausewitz and a New Containment. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 283-307). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 31 ]. Antulio, E. I. (2003). Globalization and the Clausewitzian Nature of War. The European Legacy, 8/3, pp. 317-32. [ 32 ]. Ernst Otto Czempiel, Weltpolitik im Umbruch. Die Pax Americana, der Terrorisinus und die Zukunft der interuationalen Bezh. 'hungen (Munchen, 2002). [ 33 ]. Andreas, H.-R. (2009). Clausewitz and a New Containment. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 283-307). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 34 ]. Antulio, E. (2009). Clausewitz and the Nature of the War on Terror. In S. Hew, & H.-R. Andreas (Eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 196-218). New York: Oxford University Press Inc. [ 35 ]. Hammes, T. (2012, Spring). Offshore Control: A Proposed Strategy. Infinity Journal, 2(2), pp. 10-14.

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Clausewitz understood that “so-called mathematical factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad that weaves its way throughout the length of the tapestry,” meaning nothing in war is ever certain and, therefore, one’s strategy can never be certain. Likewise, Sun Tzu acknowledged, “in war there may be one hundred changes in each step.” The strategy involved in winning a war must change constantly because one must manage the variables in one’s own strategy and, simultaneously, one must attempt to affect the enemy’s strategy. According to Sun Tzu, war is non-rational because you are in constant exchange with an enemy, “as water shapes its flow in accordance with the ground, so an army manages its victory in accordance with the situation of the enemy. And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.” Clausewitz als believed war is non-rational because of human nature, “in a world dominated so much by chance- courage, daring, boldness, and trust in one’s luck are essential qualities for a great commander.” These two ideals go hand-in-hand with one another. When fighting a war, one must constantly react to the enemy’s efforts, which are unpredictable because the enemy is human and reacting to one’s own decisions. This continual interchange creates a non-rational environment full…

    • 697 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Clausewitz, C. On War. Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.…

    • 1891 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Better Essays

    POL.355.Final.Paper

    • 2412 Words
    • 10 Pages

    Michael Walzer (1977) Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 3rd ed…

    • 2412 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The way in which Clausewitz and Jomini essentially maintain the same principles of war but only differ in what they consider significant such as the idea of movements of armies, the significance of politics and total war principles. Jomini throughout his art of war has shown the importance of planning and strategic movement yet Clausewitz recognizes the significance of other factors of war that are hard to quantify, such as the fog of war, the politics involved in war and the need to be barbarous in…

    • 759 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    [ 18 ]. Harry Yeide, “The German View of Patton,” World War II 26 (2012): 27.…

    • 2845 Words
    • 12 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    Christopher Browning’s is an American historian of the holocaust whose research focuses on the Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. He has written extensively about three issues: first, Nazi decision- and policy-making in regard to the origins of the Final Solution; second, the behavior and motives of various middle- and lower-echelon personnel involved in implementing Nazi Jewish policy; and thirdly, the use of survivor testimony to explore Jewish responses and survival strategies.3…

    • 1086 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Cited: Zinn, Howard. Passionate Declarations: Essays on War and Justice. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. Print.…

    • 763 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    German sociologist Max Weber wrote of the Great War, “this war, with all its ghastliness, is nevertheless grand and wonderful. It is worth experiencing” (EP 768). Embellishing the heroism of warfare, Weber reflects a common acceptance of war in the early twentieth century as one of sport and necessity. However, with the development of nuclear arms came a paradigm shift concerning war and its role amid international powers. Acknowledging the destructive potential of nuclear warfare, Kennedy adamantly stated, “We were not going to misjudge or challenge the other side needlessly, or precipitously push our adversaries into a course of action that was not intended” (75). Using historical precedent as his guide, President Kennedy acts upon the belief that war is rarely intentional, while also recognizing the evolving dynamic of war as one of an arms struggle.…

    • 1470 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Better Essays

    The purpose of the War Convention is to establish the duties of the persons engaged in the act of aggression. Michael Walzer defined the War Convention as the articulated norms, customs, professional codes, precepts, religious, philosophical principles and reciprocal arrangements that shape our judgement of military conduct. Thus, the War Convention may be interpreted as the multitude of non-binding moral criteria by which the justice of actions within the prosecution of conflict may be judged. The concern is with jus in bello, justice in war, and not jus ad bellum, which regards the just initiation of war. The distinction between the justice of war and the just prosecution of war is significant for the purpose of this essay, for it is the…

    • 1912 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Michael Walzer argues against the realist view stating that war does fall under the aegis of morality rather than not. He states in his view that it is possible to fight a morally justified war and it is possible to fight it morally well. He uncovers the truth behind his view in a threefold argument which includes the melian dialogue, an analogy between strategy and morality, and a comparison on historical relativism. By uncovering his threefold argument, Walzer makes it very clear the morality is still involved in war and with this I agree.…

    • 805 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Nonetheless, the urge to apply Clausewitz 's writings in a prescriptive, Jominian fashion did not disappear; indeed, it lingers to the present day. Most representative of the efforts in this direction was Robert Matteson Johnston 's Clausewitz to Date (1917), published in a handy, pocket-sized version designed for reading under trench conditions. (1) Johnston thus became the first American to publish a significant commentary on…

    • 4847 Words
    • 20 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Democratic Peace Theory

    • 1706 Words
    • 7 Pages

    3) Collins, A., 2007. Contemporary Security Studies. 1 Edition. Oxford University Press, USA. pp 28-32…

    • 1706 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Hoyt, T. 2004. “Military Force” in Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy. edited by A. Cronin & J. Ludes, pp162-185. Washignton D.C: Georgetown University Press.…

    • 1732 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    R Mushkat ‘Is War Ever Justifiable? A Comparative Survey’ (1987) 9 Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Journal…

    • 18727 Words
    • 75 Pages
    Powerful Essays