The Clausewitz Collection (merged thread)

[William F. Owen]

1) Theory that a certain percentage has to die. Rationale is that the "warrior" caste has to be humbled in the eyes of its people as being unable to protect them. If the people don't perceive military capitulation insurgency will continue.

Clausewitz would agree. Speaks to the setting forth of policy, and trinity of people, leaders and military.

2) Ease of entry=harder insurgency. War weariness is a big factor

.
Again Clausewitz would agree. War is Politics.

3) Centers of Gravity don't exist. Only CoG that matters is perception of the populace that submits. External actors rarely can change internal cultures much, only pacify (see US South for 120 or so years after Civil War, etc.)

So CoG do exist. A CoG is that from which the enemy draws all his strength. Can a CoG be targeted? Different thing entirely. CoG do exist. You sometimes cannot find them or use them, but CvCs identification or conceptualisation is extremely useful.

4) Clausewitzian trinity only works in monarchy-dictatorial systems, falls apart in anything less than total conflict. Even the Prussians and Napoleon never got the "single, decisive battle" they wanted.

Absolute Rubbish! If anyone really believes that, then they never read CvC. He would also seem to have fallen foul of not realising that CvC never talked about how. He talked about "why" in the broadest sense.
Hannibal never got his decisive battle either - but Wellington did! Read CvC. He explains it!

Will have to wait for the book. A number of counter-arguments were brought up in class, along the lines of the above, both historical challenges (cases it didn't work), and moral challenges (who's signing up to mass murder civilians?), as well as a sense the version of Clausewitz he challenges is a strawman constructed for that purpose.

I am waiting, but it seems to me that he is setting up CvC on a the basis of what people think he said, versus what he actually said and meant. If he is, then it's intellectually lazy, and misleading.
Moreover war is not about killing. I assuredly involves killing, indeed it is defined by it, but killing is merely one instrument, and war itself is entirely instrumental.

I have the feeling that CvC is like the Bible, you can interpret what you want out of him, which is kind of a supporting argument for Mr. Melton's thesis in a roundabout way. However, he sees a lot of sympathy for the Jominian formula of war.

Well where I am, we have entire groups of learned men, who just study the Torah and many other sacred texts - and argue all day and for many years.

I do not cling to CvC as a sacred text, but until I read and studied "On War" I really had very little idea as to what the aims and purpose of Warfare were.
CvC does need to be held to rigour and holding CvC to rigour is the best way to learn about what he wrote.