The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[Taiko]

"Self-imposed restrictions, almost imperceptible and hardly worth mentioning, termed usages of International Law, accompany it without essentially impairing its power." One wonders what CvC would think of the GCs, other conventions and modern ROEs - which are quite perceptible in our Laws of War. I suspect he might say something along the lines that those constraints would affect the appearence (form as we see it), and impose limitations on its theoretical "growth pattern", but not affect its basic substance - e.g., his survey of European warfare post-Westphalia and pre-Napoleon. He probably would have used different words (I've used a neo-Platonist formula; as I understand it, he was more of a German Romanticist; but I'm no CvC SME).

Not to sure about IL and GC. In terms of the morality of war, CvC was happy to leave it to the philosophers. I suspect as a realists he would of argued that IL and GC are little more than sandcastles that are all to easily washed away by the tides of war (my words not his). So I think you are right in assuming it would not effect its basic substance. However, when you take into account the importance of the population in small wars there is a place for upholding domestic law and GC, if for anything else then to maintain the moral high ground in the propaganda war. I think the US found out the hard way with a certain prison in Iraq that there is strategic capital in the GC. Although as an aside, the reports on A'Q war crimes and atrocities are all but missing from western media. But from all accounts A'Q paid a heavy price for its atrocities in Iraq especially in turning the population against it. So GC and more importantly domestic laws/custom would have to be an important toolkit for COIN. So CvC is limited in this respect. Mao certainly understand the power of the GC and upholding domestic law more so than CvC, in terms of fighting an effective revolutionary war.

In regards to ROE, he would most probably cite Prussia's first experience with Napoleon and warn that when rolling the iron dice we should make sure to understand the war being fought, not mistaking it for what we want it to be, unless we take up a dress rapier against a broadsword and vice versa. This observation is very apt for current circumstances in my opinion.

Next question is also factually-based. In CvC's time, Transnational Violent Non-State Actors were not much of an issue (the transnational anarchists came later). So, that breed of cat was also not within his experience. Hence: I suspect he would have extrapolated from the history known to him. Perhaps looking at the Roman Empire (which he found unique). This seems to be a more important question than the first.

Close, he actually used the example of Tartar tribes as transnatinal non-sate actors.

suggestion being that CvC (in normal German usage) is not limited to putting a round between the other guy's eyes, or him physically dropping his musket. There are other ways to accomplish the same result as kill or capture

Book 1 Chapter 2: Purpose and Means covers a lot of ground in terms of the various aims and effort require to achieve various political effects. But, in many parts of his work he emphasis the importance of combat. "Combat in war is like cash payment in commerce", being the most well known and quoted. In essence CvC produced a combat-centric theory.