Beyond "Vom Kriege"

The Character and Conduct of Modern War

Dados Bibliográficos

ID20138701
AutoresRichard D Hooker (autor correspondente)
Ano2005
Volume35
Fascículo2
Data de publicação2005-05-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe US Army War College Quarterly Parameters (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0031-1723 • E-ISSN: 0031-1723
EditoraUnited States Army War College Press (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.55540/0031-1723.2256
OpenAlexW2038785865
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas3
Referências citadas4

This article was first published in the Summer 2005 issue of Parameters. You may not be interested in war.., but is interested in you. --Leon Trotsky It is the tragedy of history that man cannot free himself from war. Indeed, far more than by the development of art or literature or trade or political institutions, the history of man has been determined by the wars he has fought. Time and again, advanced and cultured societies have been laid low by more primitive and virile enemies with superior military institutions and a stronger will to fight. The end of the Cold War, the rise of globalization, the spread of democracy, and the advent of a new millennium raised hopes that mankind might move beyond the catastrophic wars that shaped the 20th century. Those hopes were dashed by Somalia and Rwanda and Bosnia, by the Sudan and the Congo and Kosovo, by Chechnya and Afghanistan and Iraq. Understanding war, not as we would like it but as it is, remains the central question of international politics. And for the most primal of reasons: isn't going anywhere. Political and military leaders are notoriously averse to theory, but if there is a theorist about who matters, it remains Carl von Clausewitz, whose Vom Kriege (On War) has shaped Western views about since the middle of the 19th century. While it goes too far to say, as John Keegan has, that Clausewitz influenced every statesman and soldier interested in for the past 100 years--most never actually read or grasped him--Clausewitz endures, not because he is universally understood or accepted but because he is so often right about first principles. (1) Much of what he wrote about the conduct of in the pre-industrial era, about marches and magazines and the of posts, fits best with his own time. But his insights about the nature of itself remain uniquely and enduringly prescient. Clausewitz described as nothing more than a on a larger scale ... an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will. (2) Today, war is used to mean very different things in very different contexts, from the on poverty to the on drugs to the on terrorism. Because it evokes a call to action and stimulates national resolve, war is perhaps the most used and abused word in the political lexicon. What does it mean precisely? is surely both a and an act of force, but it is perhaps best described as between states. While not inconsistent with Clausewitz, this usage lends both simplicity and clarity to often-muddied waters. Thus defined, can be distinguished from raids, rescue operations, peacekeeping missions, counter-drug and anti-terror operations, military occupations, shows of force, and a host of other activities which involve the use of military forces. Implicit in this usage is reciprocity; an unanswered, one-time cruise missile attack is a military operation and a use of force, but hardly a war. However ineffectually, however great the mismatch, both sides must participate in the duel for to exist. Nor does official sanction particularly matter. Whether formally declared or not, is war. Nowadays, even advanced states routinely forego the diplomatic niceties, though all seek and welcome the imprimatur of international support and recognition when they can get it. Here, armed conflict means fighting--not a show of force or the threat of invasion, but actual combat. The difference is important because the many gradations of the use of forces are distinct from the use of force. Fundamentally, itself is not about deterrence or dissuasion, although the capability and the will to wage it may be. As Bedford Forrest so pungently put it, War means fighting. And fighting means killing. The distinction is crucial. The chance of stumbling into is too great. All too often, statesmen have used the threat of as a tool of policy, only to be astounded when it fails and erupts

Character (mathematics) · Criminology · Political science · Sociology · Chaos, Complexity, and Education · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · Global History, Politics, and Ideology · Law