Strategy Videos

[slapout9]

Strategy videos by Van Creveld,TX Hammes(2nd smartest Marine),Nagl,Baceivch(cant spell)....really good stuff here!!!!

Double H/T to Zenpundit:)

http://zenpundit.com/



WILF.....listen to Van Creveld on the definition of war!!!!!

[William F. Owen]

WILF.....listen to Van Creveld on the definition of war!!!!!

Hmmmm.... yeah, heard it all before. I think he's plain wrong. I'm working my way through these.

As I really respect and like Hammes and Hoffman on a personal basis, I'm keen to hear what they say.

[slapout9]

The TX Hammes(2nd smartest Marine) video by itself and some good stuff on the expanding nature of what we call War. Only bad part is about the Army....that part is all "skint up and stuff". We never did any unnatural procreation when I was in.:wry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdlbW8EJ3Fg

[William F. Owen]

The TX Hammes(2nd smartest Marine) video by itself and some good stuff on the expanding nature of what we call War. Only bad part is about the Army....that part is all "skint up and stuff". We never did any unnatural procreation when I was in.:wry:

Have to say I didn't hear TX say anything new, and I think he's wrong about a lot of stuff.
In fact I didn't hear anything much new or interesting from anyone.
I disagree with a lot, and even some of the Clausewitz stuff was complicated to a point that just wasn't necessary.

[slapout9]

Wilf, maybe you know where it is. But Clausewitz says somewhere and I am paraphrasing but Big C says that outside of the nation/state idea there is no moral rightness (hence a proper definition) of war.....which sounds a lot like what Van Creveld said. I will try and find the passage later unless you know where it is.

As for TX I found his comment about cutting all communications to Taiwan by the companies declaring bankruptcy interesting from the stand point of would it or wouldn't it be an act of War?

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, maybe you know where it is. But Clausewitz says somewhere and I am paraphrasing but Big C says that outside of the nation/state idea there is no moral rightness (hence a proper definition) of war.....which sounds a lot like what Van Creveld said. I will try and find the passage later unless you know where it is.
Does not wring a bell, especially as CvC talks alot about Peoples and Societies. The idea that CvC is limited to "Nation States," as per Westphalia, is utterly fallacious.


As for TX I found his comment about cutting all communications to Taiwan by the companies declaring bankruptcy interesting from the stand point of would it or wouldn't it be an act of War?
Using Cyber and Economics as tools of strategy, may be part of war, but they are not war in themselves.
War is the collective instrumental use of violence for political purposes. As a "Cyber" attack cannot burn down your house or kill your family, it's not warfare. It might be used as a tool of strategy. So what?

The whole problem here is that folks do not know the difference between, Policy, Strategy, War, and Warfare.

Having said that I've just been copied an e-mail from a senior officer who clearly cannot tell the difference between Tactics, Planning and Operations.

[slapout9]

Does not wring a bell, especially as CvC talks alot about Peoples and Societies. The idea that CvC is limited to "Nation States," as per Westphalia, is utterly fallacious.




From my copy of the 1968 Penguin Classics edited by Anatol Rapoport. On page 101 (my edition) under Chapter 1 What is War by CvC.

"Violence, that is to say,physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the means; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate object of hostilities in theory."

[William F. Owen]

From my copy of the 1968 Penguin Classics edited by Anatol Rapoport. On page 101 (my edition) under Chapter 1 What is War by CvC.
Put it in the bin!! It's the worse CvC translation ever. Masses of very bad mistakes!


"Violence, that is to say,physical force (for there is no moral force without the conception of States and Law), is therefore the means; the compulsory submission of the enemy to our will is the ultimate object. In order to attain this object fully, the enemy must be disarmed, and disarmament becomes therefore the immediate object of hostilities in theory."
All good, and I very much agree.
CvC is differentiating Moral Force from Physical Force. He says that Moral Force requires Law and Law requires a "State" - which he also equates with "or a society organised as such."
He is NOT saying you need LAW to make war. - quite the opposite.