I am in absolute and un-restrained agreement!!
I disagree. We actually have an extremely precise and useful language for this. The problem is folks are ignorant of it. People still say "Strategic Weapon" or "Air power is Strategic." - which just show that a great many senior officers do not know what strategy is.I think we also over codify the term "Strategy." Certainly it is a word that means many things to many people. We need professional terms of art, but I'm not sure we have this quite right yet. As John points out, there are those few who emerge from the pact that had a combination of vision, position and skill to move a concept forward.
Well Moa Ze-Dong was a student of Clausewitz as was Giap. The real problem is that 99% of folks quoting and contesting Clausewitz have never read or studied his work. (this sentence added solely for the entertainment value of poking the CvC detractors)Not sure if CvC falls into that pack, as most of his impact was through how others took his ideas and applied them to their work after he was dead.
We're still left with the fact that when it comes to the instrumental use, of violence as a means to set forth policy, no one has been able to improve on his work.
CvC was not even that original. All he did was to write down what he saw as the enduring truth as gained by a classical understanding of human history. - which is why his work is so timeless.
Wallah? Wow... never saw that coming. - but if anyone can show me better work, I'm interested.(this final sentence added solely for the entertainment value of poking the CvC disciples!) :-)
Bookmarks