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.
The Mexican War was a battle between the Americans and the Mexicans when there was a disagreement between borders between the two countries. America went to war against Mexico and fought for almost two years. However, it all started when Mexico declared their independence from Spain. They became close to America. They allowed Americans to settle in Texas, but Americans began overwhelming Texas.
From 1863-1868, the Navajo, or Diné, found themselves the target of a major campaign of war by the Union Army and surrounding enemies in the American Southwest, resulting in a program of removal and internment. This series of events is known to the Navajo as the “Long Walk” , where as a people the Navajo were devastated by acts of violence from multiple factions of enemies. The perspectives of the Navajo regarding the “Long Walk” can grant context to the changes occurring in the American Southwest during the American Civil War, where the focus of the Union’s military might fell upon Native Americans instead of Confederate forces. Rather than as a program of Indian removal resulting from the Civil War militarization of the Southwest, the Navajo
Along with the problems, she has even emphasised on the solutions. For instance, she suggests that killing by a soldier should be thought as the last resort. He should initially focus on negotiation rather than face-to-face killing. This can be imbibed in the training through a proper military training. Such issues if taken seriously can lead to the formation of a peaceful
In his cover story, “The Framing Wars”, he offers us insight to how politicians use rhetoric and other methods in order to sway us into the path they want. As such, George Lakoff, a professor and professional linguist at the University of Berkeley, describes to us how politicians covertly work. Lakoff stresses the importance of language and how wordplay triggers specific images in our minds. By camouflaging words, we can relate phrases into these specific images as he states, –“”love as journey”… you are more likely to relate to the story of, say, a breakup if it is described to you with the imagery of a journey.” (Lakoff 716)
Introduction Since 1980, the Partido Communista del Peru en el Sendero Luminoso de Mariategui-Communist Party of Peru in the Shining Path of Mariategui (Sendero Luminoso or Sendero) has diligently fought to take over the democratic government in Lima . Although there are many revolutionary movements in Lima, Sendero Luminoso was classified by the U.S. Department of State as the most brutal and acrimonious organization at that time. In this research paper, Sendero Luminoso will be analyzed on it history, individual background, and the type of terrorism inflicted. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the organizations currents status and how the government of Lima was able to prevail against the terrorist group. Sendero luminosos started
Roland Littlewood examines peace and war from a social perspective. Littlewood gives rise to this social conflict through the use of sociological theories. He analyzes how society encourages some individuals to be peaceful, while it viciously pushes others to fight for what they believe in. Littlewood also examines if gender roles play a key role in one's decision to create peace or war within the atmosphere. I chose this article, because I can relate to the issue.
These aspects of war history can be categorized into three main types. The first type are the main battlegrounds for the ideological poles (such as Nanking or the “comfort women,” acknowledged or emphatically denied as severe war crimes by progressives and nationalists respectively). Secondly, there are stories that are treated largely across the field (the sufferings of soldiers, the A-bombs, and Siberian internment). Lastly, the third types are stories favored by a specific ideological camp (for instance, kamikaze stories have little to offer a progressive view of history but are rich in themes of sacrifice and patriotism for conservatives, while Unit 731’s human experiments confirm the depravity of militarism for progressives but are avoided by nationalists because they do nothing for affirmative versions of the war).
When talking about war, there are many books with few answers to what war truly is. Barbara Ehrenreich brings forth not only the possibilities towards understanding war but also the passion people from history have had towards it. One key issue she brings to light is humanities love for war, so much so that people would use excuses like holy wars to justify their need to fight in a war. She declares that war is as muddled as the issue of diseases and where diseases came from around 200 years ago. More so than that she even goes further on to state that these rituals that date back to prehistoric times are the cause of human nature during times of war rather than human instinct.
The Echo of Battle: The Army’s way of War The Echo of Battle: The Army’s way of War, by Brian McCallister Linn; is an informative book that gives understanding on how war has defined the United States, whether it’s the Gettysburg, Iraq or the invisible battle that the military is fighting. United States favorite approach is through weapons and not much skills. However, it also explains that once weapons become silent or when there aren’t as many victories during war, the developing of new strategies becomes a key focus for the United States military. The Army focusing on new strategies and ways could better prepare them for the technology advances in today’s wars against other countries.
Conclusion a. Restated thesis: As seen in the Great War for Empire of 1754-1763 and the American Civil War of 1861-1865, societal, political, and / or economic changes, although progressive in nature and intended to prevent conflict did impact whether societies waged “limited” or “total” war. b. Significance: The modern day officer must become a student of history, requiring evaluation of these influences on how we fight. Societal views change or differ, political environment and views often differ, and economic posturing is ever present. These factors determine not only if a country wages war, but how a country wages war.
Walzer describes several issues about just wars and calls them a criticism throughout. The first one he explains that caught my attention is the way war is defended. Walzer also talks about those moralizing war are just making it easier to fight. The access to a right to combat without a fight is only making it easier. The military has found this way to justify war and made it seem ok to send people to war.
Justice Holmes’ rule was to use the clear and present danger test. The United States was at war now and by advising people to resist the draft he was hampering security. Though this may have hindered Schenck’s right of speech, the threat to the nation was greater by allowing him to