I Blame Clausewitz

Hugh Hewitt ^ | Tuesday, 08 Aug | DEAN BARNETT

[PurpleMan]

This is an excellent analysis of why much current thinking is proving to be inadequate for the war on terrorism.

Funny, though. Military educators didn't even contemplate Clausewitz until after Vietnam. Now it looks like they're going to have to toss it aside to get their mind's right to fight the Jihadists.

Hope it's soon enough.

[kinoxi]

i call shenanigans then. :)

[Borges]

Wasn't Clausewitz huhgely influential long before Vietnam? The ideas, blitzkrieg, of war of attrition have been called Clausewitzian.

[Christian4Bush]

Wasn't Clausewitz huhgely influential long before Vietnam? The ideas, blitzkrieg, of war of attrition have been called Clausewitzian.

I never heard of him until I saw the movie "Crimson Tide".

"War is the continuation of politics by other means." /Gene Hackman

[kalee]

ping

[taxcontrol]

I've always believed that Machiavelli and Sun Tzu were more appropriate for the times that Clausewitz. It always seemed to me that Clausewitz was more of a classic battlefield approach.

[Skooz]

I had to read "On War" as an undergrad History major. I didn't get much out of it.

Maybe I should dust off the old copy and read it again.

[thoughtomator]

There's a military genius even more appropriate for study on how to win this war: Muhammad (pig's blood upon him) himself. As vile as he was, he was a master of the psychology of conquest. The more we understand about his methods, which are still followed devoutly (pun intended) by his followers today, the more we can understand how to defeat them.

[Dark Skies]

Our enemy now is so much like the aliens in Independence Day who just want us "to die."

While the aliens may had superior technology, fundamental islam has useful idiots, moderate muslims, demographics, and oil.

[jagusafr]

I dunno - I had to slog through it in Squadron Officer School and Air Command and Staff College. Gotta get through a lot of stuff to come out with some kernels of wisdom. 'Course, it's not as bad as Douhet...

[GOP_1900AD]

You need all three. Machiavelli for the chess moves, Sun Tzu for assymetrical warfare and Clausewitz for the day when the West regains the courage to fight a real, full sized great power.

[Sofa King]

I disagree. Clausewitz' approach to the material was far more flexible than Sun Tzu's. Sun Tzu's style was more of a "In this situation, do this. In that situation, do that", whereas Clausewitz sought to impart the reader with a deeper understanding of war so that he could make his own decisions.

Clausewitz approach was much more fundamental (for example, describing the type of personality needed to be a good officer), while Sun Tzu's was rarely more than superficial.

[Sofa King]

Clausewitz was right.

Iran's apocalyptic policy may be insane, but it's still policy. If people bothered to actually examine the policy that drives these terrorist wackjobs, they'd realize that a ceasefire would only play into their hands. In fact, there's quite a bit of On War that would describe such as foolishness. The real problem here is people who view was as something that militaries start just for the fun of it; who think that war happens because diplomacy hasn't been given a chance.

"To Macarthur’s senses, war was something far more primal and beastly than anything one could find in the Clausewitz maxim."

Clausewitz description of "Absolute war" was pretty primal. Clausewitz viewed war as being a purely destructive entity that was only limited by external factors such as the policy that created it and human hesitation. He even describes at length how war was, in his time, becoming more primal and how classical, impractical maneuvers were becoming outdated in the face of the new kind of war.

[durasell]

Machiavelli,Sun Tzu,Clausewitz




The holy trinity of corporate vice presidents destined for jobs as Wal-Mart greeters.

[Mariner]

Agreed. Clausewitz was the genius of the bunch.

He imparted conceptual understanding...

[ClaireSolt]

Howard Bloom. Lucifer Principle is a very readable multidisciplinary study of history and behavioral research that sees all organisms behaving in the same ways which explain war and agression. Briefly stated, I think he would say that this is all happening because you have milions of young men with nothing to do and no other way to prove themselves. It is bad in the Middle East and worse in China where there is a surplus of 30 m men, due to one cild policy.

[x]

That's where the so called "fourth generation warfare" or "assymetric warfare" comes in.

What wins or loses wars like these is most like what takes place behind the scenes -- what's done by small groups of guerillas, commandos, or assassins. But the public face of the war -- the missile attacks -- calls for a public response, even though it may not do much to win the war.

[Dark Skies]

Thx. I'll check it out.

I tend to think of the islamic problem as unique. The religion may look cobbled together but its pieces contain all that is needed to produce a tight, highly functional cult of hate and destruction.

Religious and spiritual folks ask themselves what kind of spiritual being would spawn such a thing. Being an evangelical Christian, I have a suggestion.

[Dark Skies]

Sun Tzu's work has lasted 2500 years and is still used in corporate warfare. I can only wonder if Clauswitz will be as durable.

[Mariner]

Clausewitz would laugh at the concept of "assymetrical warfare". He expounded "total war"...and would adjudge the nation fighting with a hand behind it's back as a certain loser.

Once our current bunch of western "leaders" understands that Islam has declared, and is currently persuing "total war", maybe we'll begin to fight. Until then this "war" will have no conclusion...or, Islam will win.