Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era.
Carl von Clausewitz’s theories of war endeavor to be comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic. Clausewitz contends that the conduct of war itself is without doubt very difficult. But the difficulty is not that erudition and great genius are necessary to understand the basic principles of warfare.1 Clausewitz 's 1812 essay, the Principles of War, offers military commanders, with little campaign experience, a comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic model for attaining victory in battle. According to Clausewitz, military commanders must first be aware of the three most important strategic objectives of war: (1) to conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy; (2) to take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and (3) to gain public opinion.1 To attain the strategic objectives, Clausewitz requires the application of three decisive military principles: military commanders must apply unrelenting pressure and energy to defeat the enemy; military commanders must mass combat power against the enemy’s vulnerability, creating or revealing additional weaknesses that the attacking force can exploit; and commanders must capitalize on speed, surprise, and shock to destroy the enemy. Clausewitz insists that
It is almost universally understood that the winners of war often write history. With this concept comes the acceptance that history can and is construed in a way that benefits the winner and can hide the truth. In George Robert Elford’s book, Devil’s Guard, Elford accounts for the perspective of a former Waffen SS officer who joined the French Foreign Legion upon the conclusion of World War 2. Throughout this story, many obstacles, adventures, and morals are explored that communicate various perceptions on what war (particularly the war in Vietnam during the French occupation) was like. The book conveys various arguments such as the exploration of unconventional warfare and the struggle of decisive action when the chain of command has
It is vital that the military uses history to their advantage, whether it is good or bad, in
In the essay “A New Moral Compact,” David W. Barno formally uses effective rhetorical techniques to successfully argue that a draft lottery system is essential for the United States’ involvement in armed foreign conflict to subside. The first way Barno creates an effective argument is by his technique of consistently using the literary device of comparison to identify the similar, yet different, nature of the participation in the Afghan and Iraqi conflicts to the Vietnam War. Within the first sentence of the essay, Barno informs the reader of the United States entering “its second decade of armed conflict,” which translates into eleven years of continuous strife that the nation has endured throughout Afghanistan and Iraq (15). This specific information is significant as the author later uses it for an effective comparison with the ten-year Vietnam War.
The author of Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era began this book as an update of existing research on the topic of revolutionary armies. However, in researching for the piece he came across two problems that were nearly universal in works studying the revolutionary armies in the modern era. The first problem was that the comparative analysis utilized in most works ignored the human lives and flaws of the individuals. The second problem was that revolutions had to produce new ways of fighting and a new rugged type of soldier. In recognizing these two things Mackenzie changed the goal of his work.
As John F. Kennedy once stated, “Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” The world constantly faces war, war is so annihilative and causes so much loss. The harsh nature of war causes mass destruction to not only the lives of humans but also to animals and nature. In his novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, Remarque utilizes a plethora of nature, color, and death imagery to convey the theme of destructiveness of war. Throughout the novel, Remarque often employs imagery of nature to prove the hostility war creates.
On the other hand, Shaw argues that warfare is degenerate in nature. Therefore one can argue that propaganda and the demonization of entire nations during war matched with indiscriminate violence makes acts of war ultimately acts of genocide. This argument is particularly compelling when corresponded with the casualty rates of modern
Focusing on the early discussions, to the point where the U.S. entered World War II and began their debate about how to fight the Germans. A coalition force, planning and fighting as a team led to many advantages and disadvantages that ended many times with compromise. The sometimes heated planning conferences and meetings that led to debate and arguments about how to successfully fight and defeat the Germans was tenuous at best. The road was filled with obstacles, but the Allies navigated their way to a victory over the German led Axis Powers.
Out of this tension and search for answers in Christian thought, emerged the Just War Theory of St. Augustine of Hippo. Augustine continued in the Christian tradition of believing all war to be intrinsically evil. He unequivocally condemned those who desired, sought, or enjoyed war, and made it clear that to engage in a just war is to engage in war by force of necessity. In Book 4, chapter 14 of his magnum opus, The City of God, he says “to carry on war and extend a kingdom over wholly subdued nations seems to bad men to be felicity, to good men necessity .”
The machine gun and artillery used widely in World War I was a game changer in the existence of war. It changed the face of warfare forever, and took a level of humanity and integrity from the solider. They were now faceless and no longer had to meet the enemy face to face but were prisoners in the trenches and obstacles that occupied the modern day battlefield. “And the worst friend and enemy is but Death” (Brooke, 469) shows that the fighting was out of the hands of the grunt in the trenches. They were a mere expendable pawn in the battle strategy of the officers.
In the course of human history World War 1 is seen as one of the most gruesome and deadliest wars with over 37 million soldiers and civilians caught in between political ideas and action. With over $32 billion used and close to 120,000 soldier deaths from just the United States you can see why United State’s pacifists believed in a future without war would be most beneficial. On the other hand we have European militarists that advocates that war is natural and necessary for the advancement of its people. In order to understand both sides, this essay will compare and contrast the ideas and reasoning of a European militarists, Bernhardi, in his book “War a Biological Necessity” and United States pacifists, William James, in his book “Moral Equivalent of War”. This essay will analyse two sources to understand their definition on war, if it is possible to eliminate war, and how they think war can be changed in their perspective while
There does exist a “Western Way of War” characterised by innovations and technological advancement, training and discipline as well as restraint and values of Western countries that have enabled them to exert hegemony over their non-Western adversaries through the centuries. However, at its most fundamental level, it is the West’s ability to project its power over long distances and sustain their forces once they arrive that has allowed the West to bring all the other Western Way of War characteristics to the enemy. Without a mastery of logistics, honed over 2,000 years of experience, the West could not have become the most powerful, preeminent military and cultural force in the world today. From the Punic Wars to Operation Iraqi Freedom, the
It is ethically the most significant matter to fight against the terrorism, restricting them from aiming and targeting the innocent people in killing them and also imprisoning those people who has no relation with the terrorist acts. One should initiate operations like antiterrorist that could risk the lives of innocent people from being the victim of the terrorist act. Bauhn has a notion that such antiterrorist act would be morally justified under the principle of “double effect” that states “an unintended but foreseen morally bad effect of an action can be excused if both the action and the intended effect are morally permissible”. Walzer on the other hand has a view that the double effect should be changed and corrected a bit so that the
Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories of war endeavor to be comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic. According to Clausewitz, the conduct of war itself is without doubt very difficult. But the difficulty is not that erudition and great genius are necessary to understand the basic principles of warfare.1
The historical roots of strategy and tactics date back to the origins of human warfare and the development of large-scale government and empire (Goodman, 2018). The dense tactical infantry formation of overlapping shields called the phalanx, for example, existed in an early form in ancient Sumer (c.3000 BC). The development of strategy and tactics parallels to some extent the growth, spread, and clash of civilizations; technological discoveries and refinements; and the evolution of modern state power, ideology, and nationalism (Goodman, 2018). There is many parts to war and how we execute these wars, but always having a strategy and having the tactics to execute in war is the most essential part of war. We have fought in many wars and battles since the beginning of the United States but the most recent war we have been fighting has been the War On
Even though the era has changed, but asymmetrical warfare can still be found. Michael Schmitt said “technology has evolved to the point where the concept of a line marking the heart of the battle no longer makes sense in too much a number of cases”. In the case of doctrine of principle of distinction, the development of high-tech military operations has caused more complexity in distinguishing military objectives and civilian objectives. Since the principle of distinction and proportionality related to each other, the development of technology in warfare particularly autonomous weapons has claimed to violate those two principles.