NationStates Jolt Archive

While trying to get motivated to write a report on the Clausewitzian perspective on warfare in the 21st century, I decided to get the opinions of the armchair generals that frequent this site.

If you could critique Vom Kriege (On War), what particular point would you go after?

For me, I have to take issue with the lack of faith that Clausewitz has in intelligence. He dismisses it as something that contributes little to the outcome of battle as opposed to a factor that could eliminate some of the effects from the Fog of War.

I realize that this is a simple answer but I am trying to see if anybody has actually read On War and what they thought about it.

Im no military expert....but Intelligence can be cruicial to the succsess or defeat of any battle......
Know thy enemy!

C'mon people!

Everyone has an opinion on the war in Iraq and war crimes but nobody here has studied the reasons or methods in which countries use to engage in conflict?

Bah I say! Bah!

aside from complete military superiority, I would also say that the reason why the US, and its allies can nearly dominate any combatant is becuase of its INTEL.

"haha..we see you....."

aside from complete military superiority, I would also say that the reason why the US, and its allies can nearly dominate any combatant is becuase of its INTEL.

"haha..we see you....."

Okay, I agree that there has never been a military force as powerful as the United States in the history of mankind. That, and it possess the largest SIGINT system out there.

The issue at hand is whether it has the capacity to effectively counteract asymmetrical warfare methods? And how would this be supported or disproved from a Clausewitzean perspective?

damn spelling.

hmmm....

*scratches head*

A wise man admits when he is out of his element.

I guess I dont have the answers you seek....

I'm with Marx on this one (Groucho)

"Military intelligence is a contradiction in terms."

I know I seldom post to general but this thread caught my attention on virtue of the fact that I actually tried to read On War.

Tried.

Now, I'm a pretty good reader, but I couldn't wrap my head around it. From what I gathered of it, Clausewitz took a much different approach to warfare than, say, Sun Tzu. It's interesting to consider whether the differences in their views in warfare are their cultural differences, or the changes in fighting brought on by the advancement of arms.

When I think about this type of literature, I like the variances in the teachings presented by On War, The Art of War, and The Prince.

Of the three, Clausewitz focuses most heavily on tactics, whereas Sun Tzu's teachings are more strategic in nature [and, some argue, outdated] and Machiavelli's words speak most strongly of politics and various sneakiness.

If I could critique On War, I would say that at a literal level, it's needlessly complex and horrendously obtuse. Most of the concepts mentioned in the passages I read, however, were viable then and today, I beleive. Hell, check out my motto :P

I know I seldom post to general but this thread caught my attention on virtue of the fact that I actually tried to read On War.


Tried.

Well, thank you Melkor for responding to this post then. It took me about two sittings to finish On War and even then I have problems with certain aspects of Book Eight which is unfortumate considering that was the section where he was trying to deal with the possiblity of not having "Total War" but still being engaged in a militay conflict.

Now, I'm a pretty good reader, but I couldn't wrap my head around it. From what I gathered of it, Clausewitz took a much different approach to warfare than, say, Sun Tzu. It's interesting to consider whether the differences in their views in warfare are their cultural differences, or the changes in fighting brought on by the advancement of arms.

Good point. Cultural difference is one of the fundemental reasons behind the opposing perspectives. Clausewitz was writing as an officer in the Prussian, later Russian, army who was fighting against the revolutionary forces of Napoleon while Sun Tzu advised kings and led forces during the turbulent power struggles in ancient China.

As for the level of technology at the time, Clausewitz did not mention per say the battle tactics to be employed with rifle and cannon but outlined the general perspectives that should be kept in mind when engaging in campaigns and offensive/defensive operations.

Sun Tzu focused more on specific techniques such as the use of fire and cavalry. It can be adopted to current methods with some reinterpretation.

When I think about this type of literature, I like the variances in the teachings presented by On War, The Art of War, and The Prince.

Agreed, they provide a nice spectrum in which someone studying military history and political science can use to evaluate policy decisions and leadership styles.

Of the three, Clausewitz focuses most heavily on tactics, whereas Sun Tzu's teachings are more strategic in nature [and, some argue, outdated] and Machiavelli's words speak most strongly of politics and various sneakiness.

I would switch around Clausewitz and Sun Tzu in that On War is more of a study guide for officers in leadership styles and strategy and The Art of War something for generals and engineers.

If I could critique On War, I would say that at a literal level, it's needlessly complex and horrendously obtuse. Most of the concepts mentioned in the passages I read, however, were viable then and today, I beleive. Hell, check out my motto :P

I guess that's what you get for reading books by dead Prussians. They seem to really love the obtuse and complex, must be a word fetish with them. I just checked out your motto, seems like we have similar themes.

C'mon people!

Everyone has an opinion on the war in Iraq and war crimes but nobody here has studied the reasons or methods in which countries use to engage in conflict?

Bah I say! Bah!
I for one study these, out of interest and requirement.