StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990 - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
This paper 'Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990' tells that there are elements that are universal and always present, even if it is in different proportions. Clausewitz’s theory of war is a very valuable and important tool to understand wars of the twenty first century…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER97.7% of users find it useful
Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990"

Is Clausewitz’s conception of the relationship between ‘war’ and ‘politics’ useful for understanding warfare post-1990? Contents Introduction 3 Discussion 4 Conclusion 8 References 9 Introduction Clausewitz himself once said that war is the representation of continuing policy by all other means and so the contribution of politics in his life cannot be denied. His conceptions are helpful to understand war in recent times despite numerous technological improvements and proliferation of numerous non-state actors. Clausewitz had a direct approach in his definition of war. He states that war is used as a means to force our enemies to follow our instructions and concludes that the outcome that follows is the result of political activities. Policy determines war in a sense because it is used as a rational tool of violence which is used to achieve pre-established objectives. War is used as a political instrument which helps policies to reach desired outcomes. The objective of military force is not only defined by policy but also it defines the means by which to achieve it. If one is to understand the importance of politics in Clausewitz’s life, one has to look at his Trinitarian conception which comprises war, violence and play of policy and chance. In this regard, the first element should not be understood by any physical violence act but by the emotions that trigger the conflict. Hostility and passion play an important role in the realm of war which is irrational in affecting the deeds of men during actual conflict. The probabilities and the odds that shape up the war constitute the play of chance. These factors which are external refer to actual hardships imposed by our physical world such as technological and geographical conditions. After going through realms of irrationality and chance, it can be said that war is recognized as a phenomenon which also should have a rational driver. No one intends to start a war without being clear in his mind what he intends to achieve through this war or how he intends to conduct it. One has to be very specific and precise under such circumstances. The rational element is policy in this regard in a sense, because it is considered to be the subordinate of war to rationality. Discussion But Clausewitz’s critics claim that the arguments are limited to the time period in which Clausewitz lived. War is an extension of politics and that the governments are only capable of that is an idea made by many (Bassford, 2007, p. 28). They also claim that Clausewitzian trinity comprises government, people and army and that it is only possible within a state framework. To continue with this thought, it can be said that war has been conducted by numerous “entities”. It can also be said that claiming war as a political instrument of the state is unrealistic because it doesn’t include the conflicts caused by non-state actors (Keegan, 1992, pp. 69-73). The wars that we see nowadays are referred to as “conflicts of low intensity” and those are not between states. For example, organizations such as Al-Qaeda gained prominence in the 21st century. But Creveld states that these conflicts are “nontrinitarian wars” and that that they couldn’t be analysed by Vom Kriege (Clausewitz, 1976, p. 23). Actually he misunderstood the elements of trinity and took them literally such as state, people and army which served only demonstrative purposes as they are absent in the enumeration of trinity paragraph. Kalder also made the same mistake as Creveld when she limited the theory of Clausewitz as something which does not have any applications to inter-state conflict. Kaldor has argued that globalisation which has brought social change, changed the characteristics of war (Kaldor, 2006, pp. 134-139). Globalisation has failed to maintain monopoly over any violence that is organized and that mainly has led to the failure of state. Many armed transnational groups are fighting new wars between themselves and also with states but there are no wars between states. She also states that behind these conflicts there are political goals which have shifted from political ideas to political identity (Clausewitz, 1976, p. 38). Wars, in the first case, were fought to unite numerous groups that are different under a common roof. But the latter one is a bit exclusive than the first. It is based upon nostalgia which has its base on a forgotten past. Fear and insecurity are the weapons of identity politics and it considers people who are “different” as a threat. She also states that a new approach is required for the changes that are inherent in military tactics and also for the increase in numbers of targeted civilians. There is a growing importance for the civilian population which signals war which is “absolute” in its kind. But the Clausewitz’s theory is also able to analyse those changes (Bassford, 2007, p. 81). The strategy of targeting civilians is considered to be a demoralization technique with the main objective of undermining the resolve of opponents. There has been a tremendous support for the civilian population either morally or financially and it is also essential for the war. Clausewitz has three elements in his concept such as policy, violence and play of chance and he also established a relationship between the three. But he has not established the relation to be a balanced one. So in this case, growing importance in the population could have a direct impact on the hostility of actors or that it could also damage credibility of decisions taken by the governing body (Clausewitz, 1976, p. 213). But this doesn’t change the approach to war and so it also cannot discredit the trinity of Clausewitz. Clausewitz also recognized the fact people are very much central to war like the army and the government. The question that is really important is whether Clausewitz’s trinity can be applied to modern conflict. The example of Al-Qaeda is a good instance to test the relevance of the trinity of Clausewitz despite the changes that have been brought by the globalisation process. Echevarria says that the changes bring the elements of Clausewitz’s trinity in a relationship that is very tight (Strachan, 2007, pp. 145-158). The changes in the subjective character of war such as weapons, military forces and technology have resulted in changes in distribution of objective aspects. Clausewitz’s trinity can be considered as objective because it is universally present in every conflict. The elements of trinity may be present in a different proportion but that doesn’t undermine the relevance of each (Creveld, 1991, pp. 49-50). The relevance of each elements of Clausewitz’s trinity remains the same. It may be noted that Clausewitz only argued for the relationship factor and not for the balance factor between the elements of trinity. The war between the United States of America and Al-Qaeda shows the hostile emotions of the two parties involved in the conflict (Overy, 2006, pp. 217-219). In the case of the US, the hostility is the result of 9/11. For Al-Qaeda, the hostility can stem from specific events such as “years of perceived repression and injustices” due to certain policies adopted for the Middle East. This sentiment is quite strong to drive people and their leaders. Al-Qaeda has used this situation to their advantage to gain support of the communities throughout the entire region (Creveld, 1991, pp. 51-60). It has solved some socio-economical issues which the governing body at that point in time in that region has neglected. By doing such actions which helped them gain the sympathy and assistance of the communities and also sometimes by the use of intimidation and fear, terrorist organizations establishes powerful links with communities vital for their survival. Then to move to the second element which is called “play of chance”, one has to look back at the technological evolutions that were made in the last decade (Overy, 2006, pp. 99-109). Information technologies have amplified the war worldwide instead of reducing it. The possibilities of deceiving enemies have multiplied and so armed conflict has become a matter of making judgements and assessing probabilities. A number of drone attacks killed only civilians and also the fact that Bin Laden hid there for so long are examples of the situation. The importance of the role that intelligence plays in providing greater access to a number of information sources makes it an useful tool in deciding the right course of action (Bassford, 2007, p. 85). It is very important to clarify the roles of both the actors who are present in the conflict before moving to the third element of Clausewitz’s trinity. Al-Qaeda made it very clear that their main objective is to put an end to the dominance of the US in the Middle East and also to make the Islamic nation more powerful in the region. Their main aim was to reform the entire region according to Islamic law. The United States of America had a broader objective in their mind and their focus was to put an end to terrorist organizations. They didn’t focus exclusively on Al-Qaeda. The United States of America tried to put an end to all sorts of terrorist activities and also persuaded other nations to follow a similar approach. Ideology and culture played an important role in this regard. These two factors played an important role in deciding the way each party chooses to wage war against the other party but the strategy that was adopted is linked to their objectives (Van Creveld, 1991, pp.73-89). Clausewitz described war as an “extension of politics by other means” is well known. But it was misinterpreted and it was thought that war was just a weapon of the state policy to achieve certain political objectives. This misinterpretation is the result of the word ‘Politik’ which has dual meanings such as politics and policy. But Clausewitz also should be blamed for this misunderstanding because he didn’t define it in a language that is very simple. Kessel also argued in this regard and told that ‘Politik’ has both objective and subjective elements (Matloff, 1986, pp.169-177). The former comprises political interrelationships, emotions, and dominant ideas which are considered to be unique to a given place and time. The latter consists of the choices and preferences of the leadership regarding what type of war to be waged and what are the specific objectives that are to be pursued. Clausewitz actually had used numerous historical examples to demonstrate how political forces and policy have shaped up war from the past to the present modern age (Echevarria, 2007, p. 216). There are major advances in the field of technology, but Clausewitz’s trinity will be still relevant in future years in respect to war. But this relevance will not require the addition of the technological component as a fourth element in the trinity. War is considered as multi-dimensional by Clausewitz which comprises both objective and subjective elements. Technology resides within the three elements of the Clausewitz’s trinity without altering their basic interrelationship within it. The main point to be noted here is that the basic interdependency among the various elements of trinity will not get altered (Strachan & Herberg-Rothe, 2007, pp. 45-57). Clausewitz trinity is still valid even after the development of nuclear technology. His statement which described war as an extension of politics by other means remains as valid in the nuclear conflict as it is to traditional- style warfare. Conclusion There is a relationship between “politics” and “war” and the second term is seen to be an instrument of the first. But it is important to look at policy making as something that is inherent to non-state actors and not as a weapon exclusive to states. This view has been challenged by some authors such as Kaldor and Creveld and they interpreted it to be composed of army, government or state, and people. This interpretation is the result of the misreading of the Clausewitz’s theory of war and this is what that limits its scope of analysis. It was Clausewitz who first recognized that war has a changing nature. There are elements that are universal and always present, even if it is in different proportions. Clausewitz’s theory of war is a very valuable and important tool to understand wars of the twenty first century. It is also demonstrated here by the application of Clausewitz’s trinity in the conflict between the United States of America and Al-Qaeda, a non-state actor. But a part of the Clausewitz’s military thought has lost relevance. But Clausewitz’s conception of war, his trinity, and his knowledge on the relationship between war and Politik will always remain valid. References Bassford, C, 2007, The Primacy of Policy and the Trinity in Clausewitzs Mature Thought.  In: Strachan, H. and Herberg-Rothe, A. eds. (2007) Clausewitz in the twenty-first century. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Clausewitz, C. V. 1976, On War, ed. and trans. by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, abridged ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press. Echevarria, A, 2007, Clausewitz and the Nature of the War on Terror. In: Strachan, H. and Herberg-Rothe, A. eds. 2007, Clausewitz in the twenty-first century. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kaldor, M, 2006, New & Old Wars. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity. Keegan, J.1992, Six Armies in Normandy: From D-Day to the Liberation of Paris, June 6th-August 25th, 1944, London: Pimlico. Matloff, M. 1986, ‘Allied Strategy in Europe, 1939-1945’, In: Peter P., 1976, Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Overy, R., 2006, Why the Allies Won, rev. ed., London: Pimlico. Strachan, H, 2007, Clausewitzs On War: a biography. New York: Atlantic Montly Press. Strachan, H., & Herberg-Rothe, A. 2007, Clausewitz in the twenty-first century. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Van Creveld, M, 1991, The transformation of war. New York: Free Press. Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words, n.d.)
Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words. https://studentshare.org/history/1809061-is-clausewitzs-conception-of-the-relationship-between-war-and-politics-useful-for-understanding-warfare-post-1990
(Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship Between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words)
Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship Between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words. https://studentshare.org/history/1809061-is-clausewitzs-conception-of-the-relationship-between-war-and-politics-useful-for-understanding-warfare-post-1990.
“Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship Between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words”. https://studentshare.org/history/1809061-is-clausewitzs-conception-of-the-relationship-between-war-and-politics-useful-for-understanding-warfare-post-1990.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Clausewitzs Conception of the Relationship between War and Politics Useful for Understanding Warfare Post-1990

To what extent does Karl von Clausewitz explain the changing nature of warfare after 1798

In order to establish a practical understanding of war, there was a need to evaluate the relationship between military activities and the political climate of these events.... This paper shall seek to establish the extent to which Clausewitz explains the changing nature of warfare after 1798.... This paper is being carried out because of its relevance in the current age of warfare, in relation to the changing rules and nature of this activity....
12 Pages (3000 words) Essay

Clausewitz - Strategies We Are Using in the Global War on Terrorism

He advocated combining the will of a nation with its resources and the efforts of the citizens in an immense campaign to defeat an enemy through warfare towards resolute conclusions.... “Terrorists are not guerillas or irregulars who conduct unconventional warfare against recognized military targets for political purposes”2.... They employ asymmetrical warfare through uncustomary means such as suicide attacks, to conduct illegal attacks against primarily civilian targets for political reasons....
12 Pages (3000 words) Research Paper

Carl Von Clausewitz on War

This essay will discuss two major theorists, Karl Von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, with particular attention devoted to the difficulties often encountered when trying to end a war and the tension that exists between theory and As an initial matter, if one wishes to understand how leaders and military strategists approach the issues associated with war, it is necessary to understand the types of logic that they espouse.... An excellent example, in the context of a war, is....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

What Is a Clausewitzian Definition of War

His contentions regarding war and the art of ware fare was so detailed and carefully sorted out that he could only finish a part of the treaty at the time of his death.... With the advancement of the race, the issues of religion and safeguarding the rights and privileges of a community also became predominant factor for war.... Various diplomats and political persons view the war in different light and their definition or purpose of executing such an activity is also different from To some, it is an act of glory while for others the same activity appears as a gory to them....
9 Pages (2250 words) Essay

Global Economic Business a Substitute for Warfare

t takes into account the nature and types, and reviews some of the leading theories of war and the manner in which they are related to the business corporation.... This paper 'Global Economic Business a Substitute for warfare' attempts to find out define the nature as well as the structure of global business environment and its similarities and dissimilarities with various warfare techniques.... The main objective of the research report is to justify and analyse the statement – 'Global Economic Business a Substitute for warfare'....
90 Pages (22500 words) Dissertation

The Essence of Clausewitzs Theory on War

According to Clausewitz's theory, the enemy is seen as an object or target and chief aim of warfare is to remove the powers of the enemy and make them powerless and vulnerable.... Research in the field of warfare has led theorists to believe that war impacts the emotions of individuals and affects them to a great degree, depending upon how deep the conflict in interests is and the duration for which conflicts last.... By making an investigation on what other theorists and thinkers think about Clausewitz's 'On War', we get a broader and clearer picture as to how relevant and useful his insights on war can be to war in these contemporary times....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

The Strategies Using in the Global War on Terrorism

'Terrorists are not guerillas or irregulars who conduct unconventional warfare against recognized military targets for political purposes'2.... They employ asymmetrical warfare through uncustomary means such as suicide attacks, to conduct illegal attacks against primarily civilian targets for political reasons.... The paper "The Strategies Using in the Global war on Terrorism" states that Clausewitz's principal theories in his book On war pertain to the nature of war; the duality of war as limited and unlimited; the Trinity of war; the genius of the commander....
12 Pages (3000 words) Research Paper

Relevance of Clausewitz to Conflict in the 21st Century

lite Simpsons and Echevarria are among various writers who have used the work done by Clausewitz in the current warfare experienced in the world.... However, he admits that part of the confusion that is seen to be surrounding this misunderstanding branches from the ambiguity of the word politic, which in German means both politics and policy.... This essay "Relevance of Clausewitz to Conflict in the 21st Century" sheds some light on Clausewitz and his famous work on war....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us