The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

I regard the first six books, which are already in a clean copy, merely as a rather formless mass that must be throughly reworked once more. The revision will bring out the two types of war with greater clarity at every point.

Which is why the idea, rather then the expression of it, needs to be examined. The "purity of text" approach to Clausewitz can be counter productive.

These two types of war, enemy focused vs. terrain focused, should not be confused with ideas of absolute war (war in its pure, unbounded form) vs. real war (in the real world, war is always restrained in some form).

thus, for example we can see here he is talking about the conditions/Ends/Policy that armed force seeks to achieve. Of note, he does not stray off into any garbage about the "population."

The nature of war, on the other hand, is clearly defined as "an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will." Whether to surrender, retreat, let us have their land, or whatever, the nature of war does not change, while the character of war does change.

Again, common sense that drives a bull-dozer through a lot of modern doctrine.

CvC is tough...I'm sure I'm not making it easier...hope this helps though.

I find CvC very tough to read, but actually pretty easy to understand. What made that easy, was ditching most of what I have ever been taught by popular military history, which remains the major block to understanding.

[slapout9]

The following is CvC notice given about his unrevised book. Credit to Clausewitz.com on line version of On War which is where I copied it from.

NOTICE

I LOOK upon the first six books, of which a fair copy has now been made, as only a mass which is still in a manner without form, and which has yet to be again revised. In this revision the two kinds of War will be everywhere kept more distinctly in view, by which all ideas will acquire a clearer meaning, a more precise direction, and a closer application. The two kinds of War are, first, those in which the object is the OVERTHROW OF THE ENEMY, whether it be that we aim at his destruction, politically, or merely at disarming him and forcing him to conclude peace on our terms; and next, those in which our object is MERELY TO MAKE SOME CONQUESTS ON THE FRONTIERS OF HIS COUNTRY, either for the purpose of retaining them permanently, or of turning them to account as matter of exchange in the settlement of a peace. Transition from one kind to the other must certainly continue to exist, but the completely different nature of the tendencies of the two must everywhere appear, and must separate from each other things which are incompatible. Besides establishing this real difference in Wars, another practically necessary point of view must at the same time be established, which is, that WAR IS ONLY A CONTINUATION OF STATE POLICY BY OTHER MEANS. This point of view being adhered to everywhere, will introduce much more unity into the consideration of the subject, and things will be more easily disentangled from each other. Although the chief application of this point of view does not commence until we get to the eighth book, still it must be completely developed in the first book, and also lend assistance throughout the revision of the first six books. Through such a revision the first six books will get rid of a good deal of dross, many rents and chasms will be closed up, and much that is of a general nature will be transformed into distinct conceptions and forms.

I have highlighted what I think are the important points and here is my interpretation of them.

1-He clearly meant to revise his book before final publication.

2-There are TWO kinds of War and which type of War you are going to fight is the Supreme question,the Strategic question to ask.

3-The POLITICAL objective was, is and always will be the ultimate guidance on the conduct the War. The POLITICAL objective defines what winning is, not the military objective.

[William F. Owen]

1-He clearly meant to revise his book before final publication.

Very true but what he left was and is fit for purpose. He was clearly a perfectionist and we have no indications as to any major shortcomings.

2-There are TWO kinds of War and which type of War you are going to fight is the Supreme question,the Strategic question to ask.

I don't agree. To me he is saying there will be two broad military objectives. Those are not "strategy," but the military contribution TO strategy. This is also largely irrelevant, as it would more pertain to "Operations." The mechanical linkage of Tactics to Strategy.

3-The POLITICAL objective was, is and always will be the ultimate guidance on the conduct the War. The POLITICAL objective defines what winning is, not the military objective.

Have a banana! Correct, BUT the military must have a task suited to military means, and 99% of the time that will be use violence in support of the Policy.

[slapout9]

Very true but what he left was and is fit for purpose. He was clearly a perfectionist and we have no indications as to any major shortcomings.

I don't agree. To me he is saying there will be two broad military objectives. Those are not "strategy," but the military contribution TO strategy. This is also largely irrelevant, as it would more pertain to "Operations." The mechanical linkage of Tactics to Strategy.

Have a banana! Correct, BUT the military must have a task suited to military means, and 99% of the time that will be use violence in support of the Policy.

1-What he left is certainly fit for purpose and I meant nothing other than the fact that he wasn't finished with everything he had to say.

2-I don't agree and I think it is very important because Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective. And there are two primary Target categories, type one are military and type two are civilian. What we call Terrorism is simply a Strategy of selecting type 2 targets. They avoid type 1 targets (usually) because they know that caint win with that type of Strategy. And the failure to understand this is why we are loosing the LWOT,GWOT,WOT or whatever we are calling it these days.

3-No banna but a steak dinerif Clauswitz were alive he would be splitting his book royalities with me because he would understand exactly what I mean when I say Strategy= Motive, Method and Opportunity. Just count how many times the word Motive appears in On War

[M.L.]

Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective.

Strategy is most certainly more than that. Targeting is an operational and tactical concept.

Strategy is the balancing of ends, ways, and means to accomplish a political objective. It extends far beyond simple acts of force.

[slapout9]

Strategy is most certainly more than that. Targeting is an operational and tactical concept.

I take it you don't believe in Strategic Targets ?

[M.L.]

I take it you don't believe in Strategic Targets ?

Why would you say that? Strategy includes targeting, but includes much more as well.

[slapout9]

Targeting is an operational and tactical concept.

M.L., because you said this. A General MUST decide what to attack in order to accomplish his Mission. Picking the proper targets is the most fundemantal act of Strategy there is. How to attack the targets the fundemental act of Tactics.

[Taiko]

M.L., because you said this. A General MUST decide what to attack in order to accomplish his Mission. Picking the proper targets is the most fundemantal act of Strategy there is. How to attack the targets the fundemental act of Tactics.

And so the superior military cuts down strategy.
Its inferior cuts down alliances.
Its inferior cuts down the military.
The worst attack walled cities.

[M.L.]

M.L., because you said this. A General MUST decide what to attack in order to accomplish his Mission. Picking the proper targets is the most fundemantal act of Strategy there is. How to attack the targets the fundemental act of Tactics.

Picking targets is an operational function, not a strategic one. I defy you to produce a national strategy document which contains specific targets.

Strategic objectives are not the same as targets. A strategic objective may be to destroy the national leadership of an enemy country (say, the president and supreme council of Iran). This strategic objective is then translated at the operational level into either operational targets or tactical objectives.

A strategic target is a target which, if destroyed/defeated, will produce strategic effects. However, this isn't "strategic targeting."

[M.L.]

M.L., because you said this. A General MUST decide what to attack in order to accomplish his Mission. Picking the proper targets is the most fundemantal act of Strategy there is. How to attack the targets the fundemental act of Tactics.

Wrong. Deciding what objectives and conditions must be achieved (end state) is the most fundamental act of strategy. Balancing ways and means to achieve those objectives is second.

Strategy built solely on targeting is poor strategy. That kind of thinking is what went wrong in Iraq. CENTCOM focused on what to attack (Iraqi Army, Hussein Regime), rather than focusing on strategic objectives.

[Pete]

Who is this Karl Clausewitz guy and what is his claim to fame? Is he some sort of Dutchman? The Army doesn't need foreign intruders like him muddying the waters of serious discussions about military affairs. This troublemaker should be put in his place by having an NCO from Mississippi deal with him. Maybe Herr Clausewitz would see the light about not causing any further trouble after doing some push-ups, sit-ups, and what the U.S. Army quaintly calls the side-straddle hop.

[William F. Owen]

....because Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective. And there are two primary Target categories, type one are military and type two are civilian.

OK, now that IS an interesting point, but probably simplistic view, BUT I'll have to go and drink some coffee on the balcony to think about that. Thank you.

[Taiko]

Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective.

Strategy is the bridge between policy and operations.

[M.L.]

Strategy is the bridge between policy and operations.

Very good, although I would say this is what strategy does more than what strategy is.

[slapout9]

OK, now that IS an interesting point, but probably simplistic view, BUT I'll have to go and drink some coffee on the balcony to think about that. Thank you.

Clausewitz is simple! He had a problem with what my English teacher would call the "run on sentence" On another thread about CvC I wrote that the title for his book should have been "Thoughts On War." What we know is CvC wrote every thought On War he had that could be committed to paper. And then in his final notice he clearly stated that his intention was to revise and clarify his thinking. So my thinking is if he had lived he would taken a lot of his wordage out of the final book or at least condensed it down to the very essence of his thinking On War.

Also, I have never read a book that more clearly identifies how criminals think in my life! On War usually makes the top 10 list of books read by inmates in prison. "The Prince" by Machiavelli is usually number one.

But I still say picking the right targets to attack is the essential problem for a General. Criminals do with ease everyday, they very quickly figure out who to hurt or kidnap or what to destroy or steal in order to accomplish their objective. So do good Generals IMO.

[M.L.]

1-You deter people by threatening the targets they consider valuable/vital to their continued existence. If the threat is directed toward a target they do not consider valuable then there will be know deterrence.

2-The quote is from Sun Tzu not Clausewitz, but it is still targeting because the target is the "mind" of your opponent.

I thought you said strategy=targeting, and targeting=killing people/breaking things...?

Strategy in the end is targeting....who you gonna kill and what are you gonna blow up in order to achieve the political objective.

Well, anyway...there are plenty of people who would agree with you...and many of them worked at CENTCOM in 2002/03.

I take it, then, you would say that the other instruments of power, diplomacy, information, and economics, are not a part of strategy?

[Fuchs]

(CvC) was clearly a perfectionist and we have no indications as to any major shortcomings.

...save for the worst grammar of all German classic literature and a terribly wrong understanding of Newtonian Physics.