Quote Originally Posted by Taiko View Post
I think it is important to realise that he confuses CvC theory on the nature of war, with his writings on its conduct. They are different. CvC applied his theory on the nature of war to those being fought at the time. They so happened to be inter-state wars. CvC never wrote that this was, is, or will be the only kind of war, far from it. Afterall, he wrote a number of monographs on small wars and lectured about small wars to Prussian staff officers for five years. CvC argued that inter-state war had the potential for being the most violent and comes closest to reaching absolute war. He was correct.

......
One of the problems with Creveld's work is that a number of other theorists: Mary Kaldor, Rupet Smith, Kaveli Holsti etc all base their criticism of CvC and their arguments on 'post-CvC/post-trinitarian warfare' on Crevelds reading of CvC, not what CvC wrote himself. So Willf is correct, CvC is more often quoted than he is read. The problem is not so much that you can use CvC to argue anything. The important distinction to make is that you can take CvC out of context to argue anything. If you understand CvC theoretical methods it is very easy to indentify those who have taken him out of context to try and support their own argument/agenda.
Taiko: That is probably the most brilliantly succinct explanation of the misunderstanding of Clausewitz I have seen. Your words should be repeated at every chance. Thanks for this.

Dave