The Way Of War

[Taiko]

J. C. Wylie

Ha, and here I was thinking I was the only person who had read and still uses Wylie. His work really opened up and leveled the conceptual playing field for me when I was working on the model! In fact, I would probably recommend that anyone interested in this theory read Echevarria II, and Wylie first before opening CvC. I primarily use Wylie's work in the introduction and chapter four when dealing with the specifics of defining strategy and war.

conceptual framework of warfare

The study is on war (the strategic use of force to gain a political objective), not warfare, the goal being to develop a general explanatory theory of the level and intensity of violence in war. So the theory has to be very broad gauged to not only cover a considerable time period, but plausably explain why the level and intensity within war can be so drastic. From the death of a thousands cuts via insurgencies to total annihilation via nuclear war. CvC provides the best and most broadest/stable base to work from in developing a theoretical model, however, Mao/ST provide a more complex and narrower political framework that fits neatly within CvC. Mao read both works and has some interesting insights into understanding the shift from theory to practice. While I was originally only going to focus on CvC, including Mao/ST adds another explanatory layer that further enables the user of the model to drill down into the various "modes of warfare" for the relevant data.

Thank you for your suggestions on chapter titles, the ones I have are place holders at the moment.

I don't believe that the intensity of violence differs between time periods, but rather due to the objectives of politics. The trend for political systems to emphasise stability and the maintenance of a balance of power may have moved away from absolutes in conquest and destruction towards less costly and less permanent measures, and it is this phenomenon that is now observed in reduced levels and intensity of violence in warfare.

That is one conclusion I am currently investigating. "Intensity in violence" can be a slippery concept to define. For example, in understanding the intensity of violence of a nuclear war, concepts such as space and time shift/change dramatically when compared to the level and intensity of violence in even World War Two. This in itself has an impact on politics/strategy etc. As Echevarria II has correctly stated, when we are looking at this concepts, and the many variables involved, CvC establishes the fact that there is a feedback loop between then all, so it is very important to be careful in how you approach understanding/analyzing/explaining the causal relationships between all of the variables at play. Easy to say, very very hard to do!