Surferbeetle,
We are all prisoners of our experience, both in operations and in learning. By your comments, it’s apparent that we have been exposed to Clausewitz’s writings in a different manner and have developed different perspectives.

-I’ll repeat that I don’t think that On War provides THE answer, or even many answers. I think that, in its relevant parts (and some of it is still mired in the 19th century), it provides a good description of likely relationships, characteristics to consider and a method with which to thoroughly examine history and contemplate operations. It’s not the book to take into operations with you. However, it’s a book to help you think about operations as you examine them in history or hindsight, then apply that gained knowledge to inform judgment in the future.

-I agree with you on the dangers of translation. I understand that what I’m reading and how I’m interpreting it may be a misreading of German and not what he meant. Frankly, that doesn’t matter to me. If trying to pursue “what Clausewitz meant” helps me consider the issues and from a different perspective and adds to the critical thinking process, then I welcome it. However, I guess I’m just too post-modern to feel that I am enslaved to his "intent." The book is a springboard.

-If any writing from the 19th century influenced US tactical doctrine in the Cold War, it is Jomini, with Lines of Operation, Decisive Points, etc. The main piece of On War deployed in this way is the Center of Gravity (COG). I think that it’s been hashed over and argued about ad infinitum. I think that’s a good thing if it helps build a better common understanding of a problem and its facets. However, I rarely have the patience to sit through COG discussions in planning when they become rote exercises of breaking down into Critical Requirements, Critical Capabilities, Critical Vulnerabilities, etc. as a means to fill in a matrix.

-I personally saw a lot of Clausewitz’s influence in Mao’s writings (whether by design or happenstance).

-I’ve been arguing Clausewitz in this forum because that is the stated subject of the thread. Its not the be all, end all. However, I’ll admit that if you agree with what he writes, you will find yourself disagreeing with other theorists who are more sure of the universality of their specific conclusions and statements on conflict.
s/f
Phil Ridderhof