Carl Von Watz Principles Of War Analysis

1574 Words7 Pages

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 Published in 1812, Clausewitz's Principles of War, offered military field commanders, with limited or no combat experience, a comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic model for achieving victory. …show more content…

involvement in Vietnam began gradually with small protests and demonstrations but eventually developed into an widespread anti-war movement. The scale and influence of the movement made the war unpopular in the U.S., swaying politicians to eventually support to end the war. In addition, America’s military leaders fundamentally misunderstood the nature of the war they were fighting. General Westmoreland, commander U.S. forces in Vietnam, had complete freedom of action in deciding how to fight the war. 5 He decided to conduct of a war of attrition, using search and destroy tactics, in which the measure of merit was body count. 5 The premise was that, if he could kill enough of the enemy, they would lose heart and cease their aggression against the South Vietnamese.5 Westmoreland’s strategy was able to inflict massive casualties on the enemy, but it did not achieve the desired outcome. The North Vietnamese did not lose heart or did not cease their aggression against the South Vietnamese. Within the chronicles of military history, Westmoreland’s plan for success in Vietnam proved to be a plan for failure. And then there is the government and political elements that contributed to the failure. “Political …show more content…

Initially, a coalition led by U.S. military armed forces pursued a limited objective, deploying as a frontline deterrent to an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia.8 But, the U.S. led coalition quickly expanded its scope and conduct of operations, to include economic sanctions, military threats, and limited air strikes aimed at forcing an Iraqi withdrawal from Kuwait. As the number of nations and size of U.S. led coalition forces committed to the operation increased, so did the resolve of the U.S to oust Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Total war began with a massive, U.S. led, ground and air offensive against occupying Iraqi forces in Kuwait. The U.S. led coalition had three termination objectives. First, the total devastation of Iraqi military forces rendering it combat ineffective; second, the complete withdrawal of Iraqi military forces from Kuwait; and third, the full restoration of the legitimate government of Kuwait. The First Gulf War ended with U.S. led armed intervention in a matter of weeks. Kuwait was freed from its oppressive occupiers and the nation’s legitimate government was restored. Though the First Gulf War was considered a success for the U.S. led coalition, simmering hostilities in the region and calls for regime change in Iraq, would eventually lead to a second Gulf

Open Document