The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[Taiko]

The answer the OP’s question: does Clausewitz have too much influence?

Short answer is no.

Why you may ask? I’ll start from the beginning and try to cut down on the academic jargon. In CvC’s book On War he seeks to answer one question: Why does the level and intensity of violence change within the life time of a war and between different wars in different time periods?

CvC arrived at his answer rather late in his life. CvC reasoned that the intensity and level of violence within and between wars is determined by the ‘policies’ that set a conflict in motion. By arguing that war is a continuation of politics by other means CvC sets up a causal relationship:

Policy (cause) Violence (effect)

However, CvC does not stop there. In order to test his answer he goes on to develop a theorem (yardstick for measuring the intensity and level of violence within and between wars), which he called the paradoxical trinity. In setting out the paradoxical trinity CvC identified a number of primary and secondary regulating principles (dependent, independent, intervening variables), that can be used to measure and explain the intensity of violence within and between wars, the main primary regualting principles are:

Policy (the main regulating principle that determines the level and intensity of violence in the life time of a war, it also influences politics, and, is in turn influenced by politics and violence during the various phases of a war)

Politics (primary regulating principle that influences policy)

Violence (primary regulating principle that influences policy)

The reason CvC called this trinity a paradox is because while policy determines the level and intensity of violence in war, policy is itself influenced by the level and intensity of violence and politics of the time. The relationship is not a static one, but rather a dynamic one that can change during the course of a war and between different wars. In some cases violence itself is the dominate regulating principle that determines the level and intensity of violence, in others policy or politics will be dominant while the others are subordinate regulating principles.

CvC introduces an additional number of secondary regulating principles (intervening variables) into this dynamic relationship to explain why in the course of a war the level and intensity of violence can rise and fall.

Policy

Violence: chance and probability, hostile feelings/intensions, purpose

Politics: people, government, military

It is very important to take into account that both the primary and secondary regulating principles are dynamic and subject to change within and between wars. Up until his death CvC was in the process of determining how the different regulating principles influenced the level and intensity of violence within and between wars. This work still remains to be done! However, the framework of the paradoxical trinity is in place and is one of the best explanatory tools that can be used to explain, for example: why the Cold War did not get hot, why the level and intensity of violence in small wars can and does fluctuate, and why the level and intensity in both World Wars came close to absolute.

In addition, I would argue that the paradoxical trinity can also be used as a strategic framework that can shape the conflict environment and dictate the level and intensity of violence used within both large and small wars. The goal being to achieve zero levels of violence and a cessation of the conflict through the application of the paradoxical trinity. The regulating principles can be just as easily applied to COIN and counter-terrorism. This is why CvC does not have too much influence.

So, if you want to understand war read CvC, if you want to understand warfare read Sun Tzu. But that is a story for another day.