Once again my apologies. I did not mean to come across as derogatory or condescending. I will try to justify my remarks in regards to your post.
The direct quote you have used from CvC is his attempt to abstract all the material variables that goes towards making war what it is. What CvC is trying to do here is establish whether war can be considered as a isolated phenomena with an inherent nature of its own. The last sentence in the quote you have used is the most telling, "that aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something not actually part of war itself".
Using a logical line of inquiry, war as an abstraction or isolated phenomena CvC concludes, is subject to the laws of necessity which would result in a never ending escalatory cycle of violence reaching an absolute level. In reality this is not the case. In the past, many theorists and military professionals have taken this quote out of context in order to justify the position that politics has no place in war and its conduct. This is far from what CvC had in mind when he wrote this phase, as he totally rejects it when he applies a material line of inquiry.
Having said that, I agree with most of the points you are making with the rest of your post on page three, it is just a little puzzling that you would use that specific phrase from CvC to make your points, considering its origins, and what CvC was specifically trying to prove with it. In many respects it was a knee jerk reaction on my part and I did not intend to come across as flippant, nor to undermine, or dismiss out of hand, your contribution to the thread.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks