We have all read and heard quotes from Clausewitz's On War that war is a continuation of policy by other means. When other ways of doing things have failed to achieve certain political objectives, war is the way to continue pursuing that objective.
Here, I think we can understand war as hot war, as a national effort requiring domestic support and commitment toward pursuing the political objective, as an effort that may possibly evolve into total war. Here, I don't think we should equate war to military action. This is because military action can span a wide scale of intensity, from presence on one end, to all-out total war on the other end. Clausewitz's use of "war" refers to the more intense end of the spectrum in military action.
And since the less intense end of military action continues to provide options for the pursuit of policy, it may be easier to look at military action, or the use of military force, as part of the pursuit of policy.
We see economic action being used to pursue political objectives. Pursuing free trade, use of preferred nation status, imposing of tariffs, imposing economic sanctions--these are examples of economic actions being used to pursue certain political objectives. These actions may also be coupled with diplomatic and even cultural efforts, such as high-level talks between government officials, student exchange, even dissemination of culture (such as the spread of anime, or the dispatch of language teachers to help spread language education).
Just like such actions, military action is but another tool in the toolbox, to be used as appropriate in pursuit of the bigger political objective. Military presence can be used to show a nation's commitment toward a cause. This can be escalated to show of force demonstrations to emphasize a nation's commitment and persuade/coerce. We have also seen the use of limited military force (such as border skirmishes) to further put across political messages.
But does the use of military force preclude the use of other means? I think not. Economic, diplomatic, and cultural efforts can continue to be in place, and new ones undertaken, even when military action is being used. Thus, instead of looking at military force being a continuation of policy by other means, we may want to see it as part of the overall political effort. And since war is part of the spectrum of military action, I think war is thus a part of policy, rather than its continuation.
What do you think?
Here, I think we can understand war as hot war, as a national effort requiring domestic support and commitment toward pursuing the political objective, as an effort that may possibly evolve into total war. Here, I don't think we should equate war to military action. This is because military action can span a wide scale of intensity, from presence on one end, to all-out total war on the other end. Clausewitz's use of "war" refers to the more intense end of the spectrum in military action.
And since the less intense end of military action continues to provide options for the pursuit of policy, it may be easier to look at military action, or the use of military force, as part of the pursuit of policy.
We see economic action being used to pursue political objectives. Pursuing free trade, use of preferred nation status, imposing of tariffs, imposing economic sanctions--these are examples of economic actions being used to pursue certain political objectives. These actions may also be coupled with diplomatic and even cultural efforts, such as high-level talks between government officials, student exchange, even dissemination of culture (such as the spread of anime, or the dispatch of language teachers to help spread language education).
Just like such actions, military action is but another tool in the toolbox, to be used as appropriate in pursuit of the bigger political objective. Military presence can be used to show a nation's commitment toward a cause. This can be escalated to show of force demonstrations to emphasize a nation's commitment and persuade/coerce. We have also seen the use of limited military force (such as border skirmishes) to further put across political messages.
But does the use of military force preclude the use of other means? I think not. Economic, diplomatic, and cultural efforts can continue to be in place, and new ones undertaken, even when military action is being used. Thus, instead of looking at military force being a continuation of policy by other means, we may want to see it as part of the overall political effort. And since war is part of the spectrum of military action, I think war is thus a part of policy, rather than its continuation.
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment