"These three tendencies are like three different codes of law, deep-rotted in their subject and yet variable in their relationship to one another. A theory that ignores any one of them or seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship between would conflict with reality to such an extent that for reason alone it would be totally useless."
This is the main part of his definition that they, the post-trinitarians, all seem to miss. I am still having trouble working out why they think that there has to be a arbitrary or static relationship between government, military, and people. CvC never claimed there was one and specifically said that if theorists tried to contrive one then they would "conflict with reality". I think it was Gray who first called it the 'secondary trinity' in his rebuttal of van Creveld et al. Gray response is interesting. I agree with a lot he has written, but I think he is wrong to say that as a 'secondary part of the trinity' it is not as important as the first. You can not dismiss it that easily.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks