The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[Tom Odom]

At the online edition of On War at the (calusewitz home page) COG's are also called Centers of Force and Centers of Power. Might be easier to understand using that description.

You can download the Kindle version for free.

That way Wilf can put Carl under his pillow

[jmm99]

Here is my take in a graphic, where policy coordinates the political and military struggles.

In practice, we are looking at some variant of CvC's "war cabinet" - another "trinity", consisting of representatives from Policy (in charge), Political Struggle and Military Struggle:

CIMIC CvC.jpg

For CvC's views on the "war cabinet", see this post on another thread "The art of war in its highest point of view is policy" - long quote from Book 8, Ch 6 (1873 Graham trans), Influence of the Political Object on the Military Object.

---------------------
Wilf, the Political Struggle is part of a War (at times, the major part; at other times, not so significant); but agreed it is not "war" in the sense of organized violence by armed forces; nor, following its exclusion as "war", can it be called "warfare". That being said, the political and military struggles must be coordinated - a job for Policy, to ride herd on the political and military cats.

[slapout9]

You can download the Kindle version for free.

That way Wilf can put Carl under his pillow

Thanks Tom, I will put that on the back burner for awhile because best Intelligence indicates NO Kindle before Xmas

[slapout9]

A question for all the CvC experts. Supposedly War is war and there are many differant types of Warfare. If this is true, then how come CvC said there are 2 types of Wars? One to destroy the enemy and the other to grab some of his territory and either keep it or use it to trade for a peace agreement.

[M.L.]

A question for all the CvC experts. Supposedly War is war and there are many differant types of Warfare. If this is true, then how come CvC said there are 2 types of Wars? One to destroy the enemy and the other to grab some of his territory and either keep it or use it to trade for a peace agreement.

This is one of the concepts that CvC didn't get the opportunity to develop. In his author's note dated 10 JUL 1827 he writes:

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.

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).

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.

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

[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.

[Taiko]

A question for all the CvC experts. Supposedly War is war and there are many differant types of Warfare. If this is true, then how come CvC said there are 2 types of Wars? One to destroy the enemy and the other to grab some of his territory and either keep it or use it to trade for a peace agreement.

CvC was building on his proposition that war is a continuation of politics by other means through an observational account of the historical transition from 'cabinet wars' (territorial) to 'Nepoleonic wars' (destroy the standing army). It is important to note the correlation in the shifting of policy and the shift in the type of warfare that was being fought to gain the political objectives in both periods, and how this relates to wars of annihiliation and wars of attrition. There are some very interesting insites embedded in these passages which deal with the relationship between generals and policy-makers that have been misinterpreted over the years. From my reading, when CvC talks about the two types of war he is referring to the variation in political objectives a state can achieve through the use of violence.

In making this observation CvC was taking into account the level and intensity of violence required to meet the political objectives set out by policy in both periods. A very rough present day example:

Ireal/Palistinian conflict's political objective is a 'terrirotial one', hence the level and intenisty of violence is only enough to take and hold territory

The initial phase of the Iraq war involved the political objective of overturning a regime, hence the level and intensity of violence was enough to annihilate the standing army and, in theory, the state of Iraq's ability to resist the political objective of the Coalition.

[jmm99]

Delbrück's concepts of Niederwerfungsstrategie (the "strategy of annihilation") and Ermattungsstrategie (the "strategy of exhaustion or attrition") are similar (though more generalized) and extrapolated from CvC.

Two different strategies based on different policy choices.

Regards

Mike