The Way Of War
After four years I have finally nailed down a thesis:
The Way Of War
A study of classical strategic theory focusing on Carl Von Clausewitz's, 'On War', and Mao Zedong's interpretation of 'Sun Tzu'. The thesis sets out to test the conceptual framework of what I will call 'the way of war' with specific reference to the contemporary applications of force, and understanding the often oscillating intensity of violence in war.
Good.....
and good subject matter area.
Regards
Mike
Very interesting, may I bug you for more details? The reason I ask is I recently nailed down a similar topic for my thesis, concentrating on regional socio-cultural 'way of war' approaches and how well they explain the behaviour of Islamist violent non-state actors.Originally Posted by Taiko
Slight change to thesis: A study of classical strategic theory focusing on Carl Von Clausewitz's, 'On War', and Mao Zedong's interpretation of 'Sun Tzu'. The thesis sets out to test the conceptual framework of what I will call 'the way of war' with specific reference to the contemporary applications of force, and explaining the often oscillating intensity of violence in war.
Chapters are as follows:
Ch 1: Introduction
Ch 2: Carl Von Clausewitz
Ch 3: Mao Zedong and Sun Tzu
Ch 4: The Way Of War
Ch 5: Nuclear Warfare
Ch 6: High Intensity Warfare
Ch 7: Low Intensity Warfare
Ch 8: Cyber Warfare
Ch 9: Conclusion
Fire away if you want anything specific. I'm fairly busy at the moment and will not be able to start writing until January 2012 if I can get the funding. I'm saving money from an Admin job right now...but I'll try and answer anything here when I can. For now this is more of a suppository for the conceptual framework, and the main reason I posted the thread is that there is no other place I would gladly take feedback from council members as most know a lot more about this subject area than me. Six years and still a noviceVery interesting, may I bug you for more details?
Last edited by Taiko; 06-21-2011 at 11:52 PM.
Question: Why does the level and intensity of violence change within a war and between wars in different time periods?
Within a war: The sides need a breather. Political imperative dictates so.
Between time periods: Political nature of the system in which wars are fought? The 30 Years War was more destructive than the Napoleonic Wars due to the battle for souls? Technology definately has a part to play - it became easier to increase the level of violence.
A bit superficial, but my initial thoughts on your question.
Within a war - this is often shaped by political and social conditions as well as military necessity and/or realities. Violence can taper, as Infanteer mentioned, because both sides need a breather. It can also be because the political leadership of nation X decides to tone down violence to send a signal of some sort. Likewise it can ratchet back up due to domestic pressure on political leaders in response to something that happened (or didn't happen) on the battlefield. The appearance of a "cause" can also cause violence levels to increase (sometimes drastically and quickly).
Between wars I think the same sorts of things apply. Nations exhausted by a major conflict don't seem to have the same stomach for aggression (at least at first), or they may feel that their demands/needs have been met. Political unrest at home can also lead to diminishing violence outside the borders as leaders turn their attention inward. In "ye olden dayes" armies had to be smaller due to logistics limits and obviously couldn't be moved as quickly. This mean that nations or rulers had to "pick their time and place" in a different way than they do now. It's worth considering the impact of social changes on this as well. The rise of communications technology (from printing on) and nation-states and (I think) the dominance of monotheistic religion also play roles.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
That whole idea only works because of the real reason:
The culminating point of attack.
This is being driven by superiority of defence over offence AND the overextension of logistics.
Two sides deciding to recover for a while is the requirement for a temporary reduction of intensity (beyond mere movement of forces for a new attack at another location). This wouldn't work if offence was superior to defence.
If the aim is to objectively test the conceptual framework of warfare then two of your proposed chapter headings should be revised. As synthesized by RADM J. C. Wylie in Military Strategy: A General Theory of Power Control - Chapters 2 and 3 would be better headed Sequential – Carl von .... , and Cumulative - Mao .... Sun Tzu.
J. C. Wylie
Ha, and here I was thinking I was the only person who had read and still uses Wylie. His work really opened up and leveled the conceptual playing field for me when I was working on the model! In fact, I would probably recommend that anyone interested in this theory read Echevarria II, and Wylie first before opening CvC. I primarily use Wylie's work in the introduction and chapter four when dealing with the specifics of defining strategy and war.
The study is on war (the strategic use of force to gain a political objective), not warfare, the goal being to develop a general explanatory theory of the level and intensity of violence in war. So the theory has to be very broad gauged to not only cover a considerable time period, but plausably explain why the level and intensity within war can be so drastic. From the death of a thousands cuts via insurgencies to total annihilation via nuclear war. CvC provides the best and most broadest/stable base to work from in developing a theoretical model, however, Mao/ST provide a more complex and narrower political framework that fits neatly within CvC. Mao read both works and has some interesting insights into understanding the shift from theory to practice. While I was originally only going to focus on CvC, including Mao/ST adds another explanatory layer that further enables the user of the model to drill down into the various "modes of warfare" for the relevant data.conceptual framework of warfare
Thank you for your suggestions on chapter titles, the ones I have are place holders at the moment.
That is one conclusion I am currently investigating. "Intensity in violence" can be a slippery concept to define. For example, in understanding the intensity of violence of a nuclear war, concepts such as space and time shift/change dramatically when compared to the level and intensity of violence in even World War Two. This in itself has an impact on politics/strategy etc. As Echevarria II has correctly stated, when we are looking at this concepts, and the many variables involved, CvC establishes the fact that there is a feedback loop between then all, so it is very important to be careful in how you approach understanding/analyzing/explaining the causal relationships between all of the variables at play. Easy to say, very very hard to do!I don't believe that the intensity of violence differs between time periods, but rather due to the objectives of politics. The trend for political systems to emphasise stability and the maintenance of a balance of power may have moved away from absolutes in conquest and destruction towards less costly and less permanent measures, and it is this phenomenon that is now observed in reduced levels and intensity of violence in warfare.
Last edited by Taiko; 07-27-2011 at 01:41 AM.
Of note, I bumped into an interesting article in the RUSI journal discussing "intensity" and critiquing its utility.
Christopher Bellamy (1998): If you cant stand the heat ... new concepts of conflict intensity, The RUSI Journal, 143:1, 25-31
You're institution should allow you online access to the RUSI archives through informaworld. If not, PM me an email address and I'll send you a copy if you wish.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks