The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[Taiko]

I generally agree (as I would!) BUT - beware! 90% of what is useful about Clausewitz can be explained in a quite a brief way. Also 90% of the discussion and argument about Clausewitz is concentrated on about 20-30% of his writing. Books 4,5,6 and 7 are rarely.... if ever discussed or commented on.

Given deep understanding, a lot of what Clausewitz said, IS quite simple and thus accessible. What most folks here need to avoid is the "Literary Criticism" school of thought, that strays far from practical application.

To apply Clausewitz in a useful and practical way, you don't even have to know how to spell "Kant."

True, I should have qualified the reading of Kant to theoretical methodology only rather than his works on ethics. Understanding CvC methodological framework helps to avoid mistaking his proposition of the ideal of war, "war on paper", to war in reality. While Book 1's framework, which he considered finished, is fairly straight forward in understanding CvC's interposition of reality with ideal. Some of the nuance in the rest of the Books can be lost if you make the mistake of misinterpreting the ideal with the reality.

But I agree, it is very easy to get bogged down in a purely methodological argument of CvC's work and miss the forest for the trees. Unfortunately, the critics of CvC miss this basic point and end up with a reading of CvC that is totally out of context.

Case in point:

As an example, I don't think CvC helps arrive at an understanding of the Anbar Awakening. The Prince, on the other hand, helps a great deal.

CvC's paradoxical trinity is a far superior theoretical explanation of the Anbar Awakening than Machiavelli's Prince. The application of Clausewitz’s paradoxical trinity is pivotal in explaining the role of cause and effect in determining the nature of a war and understanding the changes in the level and intensity of violence between and within wars. It effectively captures the whole relationship of policy and violence in terms of the push and pull inherent in the laws of cause and effect and its regulating principles which policy must accommodate in conducting a war (Echevarria II 2009). The validity of the paradoxical trinity, and its utility, as a useful theoretical framework can be seen in understanding the origins and application of the ‘surge’ in Iraq.

The ‘surge’ in Iraq, otherwise known as the “Joint Campaign Plan 2007-2008” that began in 2007, was driven primarily by the American military as a “shift in operational methods” in response to the various insurgency’s strategies of 2003-2006 (Kilcullen 2009: 133, Metz 2008: 185, Molan 2008: 345). Applying Clausewitz’s trinity to explain the ‘surge’, the role of the regulating principles can be seen as:

US: (Violence) chance and probability, purpose, hostile feelings/intensions -Policy- (Politics) military, people, government

Iraq: (Violence) hostile feelings/intensions, chance and probability, purpose- Policy- (Politics) people, military, government

In identifying the political cause that set the ‘surge’ in motion all three of the regulating principles play a role, with the military at the lead. Its origins can be attributed to General David Petraeus who assembled a team of twenty-four military, governmental and civil experts who were to make up the Joint Strategic Assessment Team that was tasked with developing an integrated civil-military plan to address the level and intensity of violence used by the insurgencies in Iraq (Kilcullen 2009: 133). The result of this meeting of minds was a new American doctrine for counterinsurgency (COIN) titled Field Manual 3-24 (FM 3-24). In conjunction with pressure from the American people and Congress, who both wanted to see an end to the war, this new doctrine lead to a change in policy of the Bush administration (Metz 2008: 185, Ricks 2009: 155).

The original policy of the Bush administration was centered on a ‘top-down approach’ that focused on regime change and the introduction of a democratic government at the national level (Bush 2005: 1). FM 3-24 shifted this policy to a bottom-up approach “based on confidence building measures and improved security” for the population of Iraq at the local level (Kilcullen 2009: 133). In identifying the effect of this policy and the subsequent reduction in violence in Iraq, all three of the regulating principles set out by Clausewitz play a role, with chance and probability at the lead. The chance of the “Anbar Awakening” and the Sunni Arab populations rejection of al Qa’ ida in Iraq was an important turning point for the war (Kilcullen 2009: 141, Metz 2008: 185). This occurrence was further exploited by the probability of success used in the development of FM 3-24 and the introduction the new COIN doctrine in addressing the insurgency’s strategy in Iraq. The purpose of FM 3-24 was to “give the Iraqi political leaders breathing space to address the root causes of the conflict” (Metz 2008: 185). This, in theory, would eventually reduce the level of hostile feeling and intentions direct towards the American forces on the ground, and between Sunni Arabs and Shiites. With a subsequent reduction in violence the political objective that set the war in motion can be realised.

In applying Clausewitz’s paradoxical trinity to the ‘surge’ the validity of his propositions on the nature of war are still apparent. As has been shown, Clausewitz’s regulating principles on the cause and effect of the level and intensity of violence in war provide a powerful explanatory conceptual framework from which to understand the nature of the war being fought and critically analyse the conduct being undertaken in a war. The ‘surge’ provides compelling evidence of Clausewitz’s proposition that while politics exerts a subordinating influence over war for the purpose of realising its goals, its influence runs up against, and is in turn reduced or elevated by, the play of chance and probability, and the force of hostile feelings and intensions. It also explains the interrelationship between the regulating principles of violence and political power in relation to the government, the military and the people in Iraq and America and its effect on policy. By applying the trinitarian definition of war to the broader case studies of Iraq and Afghanistan it will show how these regulating principles can be used to understand the various phases of both wars and critically analyse how they have been and are being conducted.

(Back to flipping burgers )