Relevancy of Clausewitz' On War in the 21st Century

style="text-align: left;">Relevancy of Clausewitz' On War in the 21st Century 

Carl Von Clausewitz: 

“War is an act of force to compel an enemy to do our will”, said by a great Prussian General and military theorist Carl Philip Gottfried Von Clausewitz , who was born on 1st june 1780 in a noble family at Burg in the Prussian Kingdom. His father was a lieutenant in Prussian Army, but Clausewitz was good luck to be a Lanc-Corporal as starting his career at only 12 years old. He served in Prussian army during Nepoleonic war and Russian war and also in French Revolution in 1789. 

But Clausewitz gradually lost his interest as active combatant rather military specialist. On the very starting of his scholarship he found that the war is a structural conflicts created for political ends. Through some strong dictums he clearly demonstrated that the nature of wars are consistence that are political indeed. He spent a huge of his time in Royal library and Theater of Prince Henry on military strategies and find out the dynamics upon which these strategies largely depend. 

Clausewitz was much influenced on Gerhard Scharnhorst’s ideologies during his graduation period in Berlin War College. Being a realist, Scharhorst’s thought was based on the central concept of war- "power in politics and violence in war". However, Clausewitz spent almost a decade to write eight great books on war strategy. Starting from in 1827 till his death in 1837- he completed refining six out of his eight books and wrote the preface named “On War”. And since publishing these books, he was mentioned more than any other military theorists in the world of warfare.

On War in Short:

 In military warfare, Carl Von Clausewitz’s “Vom Kriege”, “On War” has been regarded as the most significant book (Single) on military strategy ever written, which was published in 1832. His writting was so fundamental that those who inluenced all the substances of military thinking of great strategists including Antonio-Henry Jomini and Sir Julian Stafford Corbett and also the American nuclear strategists has been the fan of " On War". 

Clausewitz’s “On War” is basically a collection of books. There are eight books on military warefare. In his first book “On the nature of war”, he defines the central nature and scope of war by saying, “War is an act of force to cempel our enemy to do our will” and also sets the objective of war by saying, “War is nothing but a dual act of violence intended to political ends”. “On theory of war” is his second book where he first distinguishes between tactics and strategy by saying, “Tactics is the theory of use of military forces in combat. Strategy is the theory of the use of combats for the object of the war.” He also emphasizes on the unity of war and politics depending on logistic and effectiveness rather moral dimension. In his third book “Of Strategy in General” he describes how strategy is so significant for political gain in war.  He classifies strategy into five. He sets boldness, preseverence, superiority in number, economic of forces etc as the precondition for making strategy successful. He also rejects morality in terms strategy. 

Clausewitz returns in practical combat through his fourth book “The Combat” where he includes some characteristics of modern battle. He also generalises and signifies the nature of combats. Book five is based on “Military Forces” where he describes three important features of military forces: Theater of operation, the Army & the campaign. He also generalises the actions of military. “Defence” is the name of his sixth book. He relates between attack and defence in both tactics & strategy. He also characterises of strategic defence and also classifies the defence. In his following book “The Attack” he sets the objective of strategic attack and supports offensive manner in attack. And his final book is on “War Plans”, where he defines absolute and real war defines the military object of war.

Relevence of Clausewitz’s “On War”

“All wars are things of the same nature” is the serman which is, fundamentally, proclaimed as the essence of whole the writings of carl von clausewitz. Though he thought, during publishing his books, that people would forget his writings within two-three years, but that did not happen. Scholers find two core reasons why the books have still relevence. The first of his theoritical development of war and second is the superiority of his theorising. In short, clausewitz make us understood the nature and object of war, how it works and why it works. Throughout the two centuries, Clausiwitzian qoutations has been given in military studies almost all over the world. 

Though there are many critics upon the relevency of Clausewitz theory of war, there has been a little trying to improve it. Among this trying U.S. Navy Real Admiral J.C. Wylie’s book “Military Strategy: A General Theory of Power Control” was successful to some extent.

However, in this writing we will describe of some core ideas, namely, the nature of war; the duality of war; the trinity; the geneius commander; center of gravity; and fog & friction, which have still relevence in the 21st century. We can put present “Global War On Terror” as our case study. 

Understanding the nature of war: 

In the beginning, Clausewitz describes that it is very important to understand of both conflictual parties to identifies what kind of war you are, really, engaging. His two great dictums emphasise his definition on the nature of war. 

“The first, supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgement that the statesmen and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarkig; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is allien to its nature. ” His thought about the engaging into war is still valid on War on Terror, though it was written almost two hundread years ago. Although the Bush Administration seemed it as limited war, it has been betrayed them by turning into more than a limited war. Though they wanted to destroy the Taliban haven, but engaging in total war when encountered by Sunni led Al-Qaeda and also Saddam regime, the administration immediatedly compelled to hold on. They understood that they were no longer in good position because of huge Sunni led insurgents (so-called) would challenge them who (insurgents) are not confined in a particular location rather in scatters. So they (US Administration) go for a total war by invading Iraq in 2003. 

The Second act is “War is the continuation of policy by other means .” So when the Bush Administration successfully invaded Iraq and Afganistan, and they wanted to continue its campaign widely through attacking on global terrorism for uprooting their havens in accordance with this second sermon. Therefore they entered into Syria, Yameen and Libyan conflicts. So there might be no problems in identifying the clausewitzian theory of nature of war as relevence as it was of 19th and 20th century. And even in Cold war- the proxy wars, one kinds of wars waged for fullfilled the political ends of two blocs through their military assistances. 

                          

The Duality of War

Carl Von Clausewitz in his great book “On War” describes firstly the concept of total war, wherein the conflictual states use their full resources for waging war. But this concept is more abstraction than is practical. Following this absolute or total war he formulate a new practical concept called limited war, wherein conflicted states use less resources than gaining their political aims. The object of limited war is to force or corce on others and achieve its political ends. In “War On Terror” the Bush Administration was started this sort of war for fullfilling its(US) foreign policy. After invading Iraq, The USA was in a position that they don’t know how to react the on going status and its future because the Bush faced a huge confrontation from Baathist parties, Sunni or Shia extreemists, and Al-Qaeda whom are very willing to take the American down and send them back. In that position the US captures another great dictum of clausewitz, “If one side uses forces without compunction, undaterred by the bloodshed it involves, while the otherside refrains, the first will gain the upper-hand. ”

So the Bush Administration took the unlimited version wars to destroy the terrorists, but they yet successful to do so. On 1 January 2007, the Bush Administration acknowledged their failure by saying, “Our past efforts to secure Bagdad failed for two principal reasons: (1) there were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents, and (2) there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have… ”. Through this public acknowledgement, Bush indirectly wanted his people support as they did in past during vietnam. Thus his fellow followed Clausewitzian terms “maximum exertion of strength ”. So Bush also sets Iran and Syria as their rough nations. 

In duality nature of war, Clausewitz states, “War may either be 1. waged with the aim of completely defying the enemy in order to force him to concept any terms whatever; or 2. waged to acquire territory in order to retain with the occupied land in peace negotiations .” The US administration followed here the first terms- not to capture the land rather change the Iraqi regime. 

The Trinity

“Trinity” is one of the most significant work of clausewitz, which is the combination of three factors at play in war, namely, 1. Primordial violence, hetred, and enmity; 2. Chance and probability which exist in the creative spirit; and 3. Wars subordination as an instrument of policy which make war subjected to reason. ” He connects these factors to people, commader, and the govt. respectively. According to “On War’s Trynity”, when people faced different ideas, they would engage into a violence, the army commander would use this reaction geniusly during war; and the govt. must formulate policies regarding the favor of both people and military.  

Regarding the topic “War on Terror”- the Bush Administration, first of all, make understood of their people that they, the people of America, are in position of great trouble because of the external threats from those radical islamists- Al-Qaeda and Taliban. The people then gave their support to invade Iraq and uproot of terrorists haven. The commander and his army determined how much threatful the extremist Islamists are towards the USA and its allies. So depended upon this military report and public support, the Bush Administration uphold a-

new foreign policy named “Pre-emptive Attack” and the “Global War on Terror” was one of its policy. 

For the implimentation of his concept of “Trinity” he further says that one element (people) may play more important role than that of others. Means the US administration musst consider this war is the passion of radical Islamists. And  they (the US) have understood that it cannot be done unless the reduction of this believers. But that was too late to get that. And the US triangle is become foolished according to Clausewitzian dictum, “Each side must be carefully balanced ”

The Center of Gravity

The term “Center of Gravity” used almost 40 times which disclose its great importance toward the nature of war. Clausewitz plays much attention toward large battles by sayong, “The major battle is therefore to be regarded as concentrated war, as the center of gravity of the entire conflict. ”  But in terms of Clausewitzian center  of gravity, the US made mistake by policy making for winning the war rather than winning hearts and minds of general people or radical muslis through Islamic scriptures. If the US would get the policy of destroying Taliban and Al-Qaeda, by terming them the enemy of Islam who are betraying the mass muslim people through invalid interpretation of the scripture. But on the otherhand, this radical Islamist group took case and used it asthe sowrd against western including the USA. Though today, the USA tries to dissuade those radical Islamist in Iraq through their renown soft power, namely, security cooperation, education and health facilities, humanitarian aids and economic assistance, but it may not be as successful as it did previous according to Clausewitz terms.  

The Genius of the Commander

Of Course, there is the evolution of art negotiation and operation of commanders. Today’s commanders are mere capable to solve geopolitical perpexualities not only with inter-state senerio but also with many non-state actors including transnational terrorist organisations. Now the art of war for a commander is global not internal. In the perspect of geniusity of the commander Carl Von Clausewitz says, “The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish by that test the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. ” By assessing this dictum, the US army is getting skilled over local language and make communication with local mass Sunni muslims. Clausewitz also emphasizes to reject any moral or emotional attitudes rather hold a rational judgement the problem, and a negotiator must understand what is going on in the need of opponent. The Bush Administration found their lacking or failing in this particular points and recorrect the miscalculations. 

Further Clausewitz coined a term “Coup d’oeil” which means a larger degree on genius which is an intuation ability of commanders. A good commander must be a better negotiator. He/She must recognise the posture of opponent. And a negotiator must be humble and intelligence during their appearence after the warfare. Because defeated enemy will try to recover it unless you treatise with them. The Bush Administration missed it at their very beginning and present insurgency are the consequence of their failure. 

Fog & Friction in War:

“Friction”, the concept is termed by Clausewitz as an additional concept which is also important to understand the nature of war. According to Clausewitz, “the conduct of war resembles the workings of an intricate machine with tremendous friction, so that combinations which are easily planned on paper can be executed only with great effort.”31 Friction is “the force that makes the apparently easy so difficult. ” Friction can be found in both tactics and strategies. It also asserts that how waging a war is different and how strategy can be modified or replaced depending on the context. 

Clausewitz describes in his third book “The Strategy” the contextual used of strategy. He further argued that the must critical or difficult situation of the commander comes when they faced with the tyranny of friction. For example, when the US troops were attacked using guerilla tactics by Iraqi insurgents, they had to modify the precious strategy depending on the present context. This idea of friction is still try to overcome by the US strategeis.

Conclusion

Examining the War on Terror by the text of Clausewitz, mordern military finds a lot of realistic and practical guidence from the classical writing “On War”. Though there some ambiguity in his theory of war, but through double-reading you can find the relevency of Clausewitzian writings in the 21st century . The Bush Administration’s War on Terror is the major example of its contemporary relevency. Now the US revised it and got many important clues that might have benefecial during the beginnig . Carl Von Clausewitz was a great and unique personality be both as scholar and soldier. We can finish the essay by using his a famous words, “No one starts a war, or ought to, without first being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve by that war and how he intends to conduct it. ”

Badirujjaman 

Student, International Relations Study 

 Reference: 

 On War, pp. 88-89

  Ibid.

  On War, p. 75

  President’s Address to the Nation, www.whitehouse.gov, January 10, 2007

  On War, p. 77

  On War, p. 97

  On War, p. 89

  On War, p. 80

  On War, p. 258

  

  Ibid.

 On War, p. 121 

  On War, p. 579