Clausewitz and War

Question 1

What is the definition of War?

Answer 1

A state of hostility/conflict between different states/groups within/between states– not always to cause destruction but to bend enemy to do our own will

Question 2

Why Clausewitz and who was he?

Answer 2

A beam of light from the past that helps aluminate even now the perplexities of modern day military and war issues through what some believe to be the ‘truths’ of war
Clausewitz was a soldier for the Prussian army during the Napoleonic Wars that wrote a book on his personal experiences that was meant to help other soldiers understand warfare. His thoughts of how to depict war remain relevant as the war itself is said to be the beginning of modern warfare.

Question 3

How were Previous/Old Wars fought?

Answer 3

Previous Wars
- Fought by small armies
Often belonged to a Lord of some kind

• Limited objectives
  Small land through intrastate warfare
• Limited state resources
  Only as much as the Lord’s themselves could afford, with the state now being able to afford to tax an entire country

Question 4

How are new Wars fought and what new things did they bring?

Answer 4

New War
- Thought of as ‘Mass Conscription’, wars were now fought by and between states; rather than mercenaries fighting for a Lord who just wish to be paid, it became about national patriotical purposes.

• Social transformation - Change in gender dynamics = women take men’s role
• Technological and practical innovations - the forming of innovative new idea’s through fast-paced war (tinned food)
• Broader State/Societal investment - citizen’s accept taxing from govt. on whole countries as ALL are at war

Question 5

What is Clausewitz argument on describing war?

Answer 5

Its NATURE is PERMANENT (War is unchanging and is motivated by the same things over space and time)

Its CHARACTER is TRANSFORMATIVE (All the things listed above about New Wars)

War is RATIONAL (calculated), NATIONAL and INSTRUMENTAL (a policy by other means)

Question 6

What are Clausewitz’s key concepts?

Answer 6

Friction, Fog of War, Luck/Chance, The Trinity, Limited vs. Unlimited/Destroy vs. Control, War as an instrument of policy, Centre of Gravity

Question 7

Friction?

Answer 7

‘everything is war is simple, but the simplest things are difficult’ – E.G. sometimes US and Canadian troops train together due to close connections; however, we also know about ‘accidental friendly fire’

Question 8

The 1st Trinity Triangle? If you are going to engage in war…?

Answer 8

Rationality, Passion/Irrationality, Chance/Uncertainty: these are the things one must master to become ‘good’ at war. It is CALCULATED. If you are going to engage in war = you are in it to win it. You must engage in it RATIONALLY, whilst being PASSIONATE but not too IRRIATIONAL and to consider LUCK.

Question 9

The 2nd Trinity Triangle? + Example

Answer 9

The 2nd Trinity: Government (Intelligence), People (POV), Military (Skill): Idea conceived through Vietnam War. All three sections were pro-war… Until body bags began to be seen through the media (People interest against war and it is said this is when the US lost the war – they lost the PR battle) and PTSD (Military interest against war)

Question 10

War as an instrument of policy?

Answer 10

War is merely the continuation of policies by other means

Question 11

How would the idea of Unlimited vs. Limited War be thought of?

Answer 11

Possible now because of nuclear weapons? Or unconceivable due to HR’s? Intervention through grouped IO’s?

Question 12

Chance/Luck?

Answer 12

Sometimes lucky, sometimes unlucky – one must learn how to deal with this

Question 13

Fog of War?

Answer 13

Bad intelligence, lack of information

Question 14

Centre of Gravity?

Answer 14

Strike at the enemies heart: not just the military field (9/11 – Osama Bin Laden)

Question 15

What author will you be using and what is the main argument of his piece?

Answer 15

Author: ECHEVARRIA

Main argument: Takes on a poststructuralist-like attempt to explain how Clausewitz’s theories on war as still relevant

Question 16

Clausewitz fails to define ‘Politik’

Answer 16

Which means both ‘politics’ and ‘policy’, therefore delegitimizing his work through his failure to outline his meanings.

Counter: It means both senses of the word, which Clausewitz outlines in separate chapters to show the differentiated meaning of the word in both contexts.

Policies: the decision of the state to pursue goals through its ‘will’

Politics: Through the interaction between state and external affairs

Question 17

Clausewitz focuses on state warfare, specifically through a Eurocentric lens

Answer 17

Through his work, Clausewitz only focuses on the ideas of state warfare, with his focus being on Western nation-states and disregards the types of warfare we see today (intrastate)

Counter: Although defining it as a ‘state’, Clausewitz’s definition ‘Can be a united sovereign entity OR an agglomeration of loosely associated forces’ = And so can therefore relate to both states we know of today all the way down to terrorist associations and drug cartels.

Tartar tribes and future wars: a tribe that falls out of the Western paradigm, used politics as a directive for war. They were invaded and conquered by the Mongols, with which they assisted in the taking of the ME, where they converted to Islam and went on to fight in the Holy Wars to convert others. = Therefore; the Tartar’s fought with what is believed to be the motives of ‘future wars’ (convert infidels, for booty, to kill enemy leaders) = Shows Clausewitz acknowledges the uniqueness of wars and the role culture has on them.

Question 18

How has technology changed war and made Clausewitz triangle irrelevant? What counters this argument?

Answer 18

Through the creation of drone missiles and other military developments, it has led to a dehumanising of killing and a backseat role of the military, giving the government an overarching role in Clausewitz’s triangle and so delegitimises it.

Counter: War is a chameleon, with technology merely changing wars form – not its nature. By this we mean that war is composed of both subjective elements (a wars means = as they vary over time and place) and objective elements (violence perseveres, no matter the time and place or the means of the war, if war exists, so does violence – although its intensity may vary). This violence brings with it Clausewitz key concepts of uncertainty, chance and friction.

Citizens see media coverage a lot faster to understand implications now, instead of body bags

Question 19

Would ‘New Wars’ Kaldor be subject to his classification of war ‘Trinity of War’?

Answer 19

Yes, ISIS and Al Qaeda may not have a typical ‘state government’ but instead they have military groups of their own (quasi-militants). They also have groups we can define as ‘people’ as they are not directly involved in the military but still follow the group. Trinity of war.

Clausewitz theory could be reworked to fit modern era.

Question 20

What is Kaldor’s argument for New Wars and Old Wars

Answer 20

Old Wars:

• Fought ideologically (by social elites)
• Had support from the masses
• Used controlled violence (combatants killed in certain numbers)
• Mass grievances

New Wars:

• Fought by criminals
• Had no support (used fear to suppress the masses)
• No control over killing with non-combatants being targetted
• No political objectives