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
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
"Bombardment, barrage, curtain-fire, mines, gas, tanks, machine-guns, hand-grenades, words, words, words, but they hold the horror of the world” (Remarque 132). The severe sensible threat of dying serves as an
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.
Without operational art war would be a set of disconnected engagements with relative attrition the only measure of success or failure." (Joint Publication 1). When the United States deviated from using doctrine customarily used in campaigns, it proved to be a problem, but the
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 .”
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.
The Guns at Last Light, Rick Atkinson’s final book in his Liberation Trilogy, focuses on WWII from 1944-1945 in Western Europe. Atkinson constructs a book which is incredibly well researched, and concentrates on the war from the Allied perspective. Unlike many scholarly works, Atkinson’s work does not immediately state a thesis. Rather, Atkinson crafts his story in such a way that his thesis is revealed over time. In this way, Atkinson argues that the Allied regime succeeded over the Axis powers because of their cohesion and the American’s resources.
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.
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
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
Ridgway, a general during World War II once observed, "What throws you in combat is rarely the fact that "your tactical scheme was wrong but that you failed to think through the hard cold facts of logistics. " Logistics is the key element in western warfare, more so in the 21th century than ever before. The Wests’ success on the modern battlefield has been dictated by how well a commander has managed available logistical support. The United States success in major wars and several minor wars or conflicts in the 20th century are linked more directly to the ability to mobilize and bring to bear economic and industrial power than any level of strategic or tactical design. Operations during the Gulf War to liberate Iraq illustrate this point.
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
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.