Clausewitz- On War Flashcards
Trinitarian war concept
Describes the three main components of war, which are:
The people - including the military, government, and civilians - who shape and participate in the conflict.
The military - which includes the physical and material aspects of war, such as weapons, tactics, and logistics.
The political objectives - which are the goals and interests that a nation seeks to achieve through warfare.
Clausewitz argued that these three elements are constantly interacting and evolving throughout a conflict. He emphasized that a successful strategy must be able to balance the interests and needs of all three components, and adapt to changes in the balance of power over time.
The role of military
According to Carl von Clausewitz, the role of the military is to achieve political objectives through the use of force. In his influential book “On War,” Clausewitz argued that war is a continuation of politics by other means, and that military action is a tool used by the state to achieve its political goals.
Clausewitz believed that military action should be seen as part of a larger political strategy, and that military objectives should be subordinate to political objectives. He emphasized that military commanders must understand the political context of the conflict and work to support the overall political goals of the state.
Clausewitz also argued that military action should be guided by a rational calculation of costs and benefits, and that military force should be used only when it is likely to achieve the desired political outcome. He cautioned against the use of force as a means of venting anger or pursuing glory, and stressed the importance of discipline, planning, and coordination in military operations.
Theories of real war
Interrelated theories that describe the nature of real war:
The theory of war as a continuation of politics by other means: Clausewitz argued that war is a tool used by states to achieve political objectives, and that military action should be seen as part of a larger political strategy. He believed that military commanders must understand the political context of the conflict and work to support the overall political goals of the state.
The theory of the trinity: Clausewitz developed the concept of the “remarkable trinity” to describe the three main components of war, which are the people, the military, and the political objectives. He emphasized that a successful strategy must be able to balance the interests and needs of all three components, and adapt to changes in the balance of power over time.
The theory of friction: Clausewitz believed that war is inherently unpredictable and subject to a range of practical difficulties, or “friction.” He argued that military commanders must be able to adapt to changing circumstances and make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and limited information. He stressed the importance of flexibility, creativity, and resourcefulness in dealing with the challenges of real war.
These three theories are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, and together they provide a framework for understanding the nature of war and developing effective strategies for its conduct.
Theories of absolute war
Carl von Clausewitz developed the concept of absolute war as a hypothetical ideal form of warfare, which is characterized by complete and unlimited use of military force to achieve a decisive victory over the enemy. However, Clausewitz also recognized that absolute war is impossible in practice, and that real war is subject to a range of practical limitations and constraints.
Clausewitz did not present a comprehensive theory of absolute war, but rather used the concept to explore the extreme limits of military power and its potential for total destruction. Some of the ideas associated with absolute war in his writing include:
The complete annihilation of the enemy: Absolute war involves the use of overwhelming force to completely destroy the enemy’s military capability and will to resist.
The elimination of political constraints: Absolute war requires the removal of all political constraints on the use of military force, allowing commanders to pursue their objectives without any limitations on their actions.
The domination of the battlefield: Absolute war involves the complete domination of the battlefield, with no possibility of escape or evasion for the enemy.
The total mobilization of resources: Absolute war requires the total mobilization of a nation’s resources, including its economy, population, and military forces.
Overall, Clausewitz saw absolute war as a hypothetical extreme that could only be approached in practice, and recognized that the practical limitations of real war make it impossible to achieve in its pure form. He argued that the key to success in real war is not to pursue absolute victory, but rather to achieve one’s political objectives through a balanced and flexible use of military force.
Concept of friction
According to Carl von Clausewitz, friction is the concept that describes the practical difficulties and challenges that arise in the conduct of war, which can make it difficult for military commanders to achieve their objectives. Friction is inherent in the nature of war, and arises from a range of factors, including the complexity of the battlefield, the limitations of military technology and resources, and the unpredictability of human behavior.
Clausewitz believed that the key to success in war is not to eliminate friction, but rather to manage it effectively. He argued that military commanders must be able to adapt to changing circumstances and make decisions under conditions of uncertainty and limited information. This requires a combination of creative thinking, resourcefulness, and the ability to make quick and effective decisions in the face of adversity.
Clausewitz also emphasized the importance of training and discipline in managing friction. He believed that well-trained and disciplined troops are better able to handle the practical difficulties of war and adapt to changing circumstances. He also recognized the importance of good logistics and supply systems in supporting military operations and minimizing the effects of friction.
Overall, Clausewitz saw friction as an unavoidable part of the nature of war, and argued that successful military commanders must be able to manage it effectively in order to achieve their objectives.
Difference Real and Absolute War
Carl von Clausewitz distinguishes between real war and absolute war in his writings, using the concept of absolute war as a hypothetical ideal form of warfare, while acknowledging that it is impossible to achieve in practice.
Real war is the type of warfare that actually occurs in the world, with all its practical limitations, political considerations, and unpredictability. Clausewitz sees real war as subject to the friction of the battlefield, which means that it is subject to a range of practical difficulties and challenges that can make it difficult to achieve one’s objectives. Real war is characterized by a balance of military and political objectives, with military action being used as a tool to achieve broader political goals.
In contrast, absolute war is a purely theoretical concept, representing a state of total war where there are no limitations on the use of force and all aspects of the enemy’s military capability are completely destroyed. Absolute war is characterized by the elimination of political constraints, the total mobilization of resources, and the complete domination of the battlefield.
Clausewitz acknowledges that absolute war is impossible to achieve in practice due to the practical constraints of real war, including the limits of military power and the political considerations that shape the use of force. However, he uses the concept of absolute war as a hypothetical ideal to explore the extreme limits of military power and its potential for total destruction. Ultimately, Clausewitz emphasizes that the key to success in real war is not to pursue absolute victory, but rather to achieve one’s political objectives through a balanced and flexible use of military force.
