Years ago, I read this classic book on strategy by Clausewitz called "On War", and wrote a short article on what I felt after reading the work. The article follows:
-------------------------------------------
This is the classic work by Clausewitz that discusses war. It is a book that seeks to define war, and then form a theory for use in strategy as well as in tactics.
Firstly, Clausewitz defines war as "a mere continuation of policy by other means", and it is "an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will". What he is trying to say is that, war is never started without a political objective. All wars are started because of politics, and when the means of politics by diplomacy and such fail, war is the means by which we turn to.
Also, in war, there is strategy and tactics. "Tactics is the theory of the use of military force in combat. Strategy is the theory of the use of combats for the object of the war." We can thus see that strategy is what binds each individual battle together. However, tactics do not win a war. It is strategy that determines success or failure. Thus, defeat in the battlefield does not necessarily mean ultimate defeat in the war. By stringing together success and defeat in individual battles, a war can be won.
Clausewitz also defines his idea of a genius in war. By the word 'genius', he refers to someone who is more capable than others in a certain field, which in this case, is war. The first quality is courage, not just against moral issues but also, more importantly, courage against physical danger. Next is physical and mental strength to see him through the war. Also, he will need luck as war is a game of chance. He must also possess resolution, as well as a "guiding inner light", much like a religious calling. He must have "a great force of will". Also, he must have a competitive nature. A genius for war is also able to assess any situation quickly. Strength of character is also a must, and lastly he must possess self-discipline.
In seeking to define his theory for strategy and tactics, Clausewitz tells the reader that there is no fixed theory on war, that there is no winning formula. Each war is different, as the methods of warfare change with times. Therefore the important things is to be able to exploit the situation. There are, however, a few guiding principles in war. One of them is surprise. Another is the superiority of numbers. Also, he stresses that a commander must ultimately bear the whole moral weight of the war, and if he fails in that, morale will drop and a victory will not be possible.
What we can gather from this is that, in war, victory and defeat is determined largely by the commander. If he is of strong character and can inspire his men, as well as assess and exploit the situation at hand, he will be able to win the war. Also, since war is an extension of policy, a good commander must also have a good understanding of the nation's policies.
This is a good book on the theory of warfare, in that it gives only the important parts and does not burden the reader with too much tactical details that will only change with times.
-------------------------------------------
This is the classic work by Clausewitz that discusses war. It is a book that seeks to define war, and then form a theory for use in strategy as well as in tactics.
Firstly, Clausewitz defines war as "a mere continuation of policy by other means", and it is "an act of violence intended to compel our opponents to fulfil our will". What he is trying to say is that, war is never started without a political objective. All wars are started because of politics, and when the means of politics by diplomacy and such fail, war is the means by which we turn to.
Also, in war, there is strategy and tactics. "Tactics is the theory of the use of military force in combat. Strategy is the theory of the use of combats for the object of the war." We can thus see that strategy is what binds each individual battle together. However, tactics do not win a war. It is strategy that determines success or failure. Thus, defeat in the battlefield does not necessarily mean ultimate defeat in the war. By stringing together success and defeat in individual battles, a war can be won.
Clausewitz also defines his idea of a genius in war. By the word 'genius', he refers to someone who is more capable than others in a certain field, which in this case, is war. The first quality is courage, not just against moral issues but also, more importantly, courage against physical danger. Next is physical and mental strength to see him through the war. Also, he will need luck as war is a game of chance. He must also possess resolution, as well as a "guiding inner light", much like a religious calling. He must have "a great force of will". Also, he must have a competitive nature. A genius for war is also able to assess any situation quickly. Strength of character is also a must, and lastly he must possess self-discipline.
In seeking to define his theory for strategy and tactics, Clausewitz tells the reader that there is no fixed theory on war, that there is no winning formula. Each war is different, as the methods of warfare change with times. Therefore the important things is to be able to exploit the situation. There are, however, a few guiding principles in war. One of them is surprise. Another is the superiority of numbers. Also, he stresses that a commander must ultimately bear the whole moral weight of the war, and if he fails in that, morale will drop and a victory will not be possible.
What we can gather from this is that, in war, victory and defeat is determined largely by the commander. If he is of strong character and can inspire his men, as well as assess and exploit the situation at hand, he will be able to win the war. Also, since war is an extension of policy, a good commander must also have a good understanding of the nation's policies.
This is a good book on the theory of warfare, in that it gives only the important parts and does not burden the reader with too much tactical details that will only change with times.
--------------------
Update January 11, 2021: It seems people have been reading this post lately. Just to clarify, this was posted in March 2011, almost 10 years ago, and the original article was probably written 5 to 10 years prior to that, when I was still in the academy or just starting out as a junior officer. The thoughts about "On War" are thus quite simplistic when I read this post today. Reading this post together with Inkling: "Clausewitz vs Sun-Tzu" on war and Military force as a continuation of policy? Or part of policy? may help provided a slightly more substantial (but no means complete) view.
No comments:
Post a Comment