Quote Originally Posted by PhilR View Post

I agree that Clausewitz would be laughing because, if you read Book Two of On War he pushes something called “critical analysis” of historical events as the best way, outside of actual experience, to learn about conflict. Jon Sumida, in his recent book Decoding Clausewitz (2008) provides a better explanation than I can in this short space (you can get a good idea from his recent article in Army History "The Clausewitz Problem" pg 17 Fall 2009. Its 8 mb; you have download the whole magazine: http://www.history.army.mil/armyhistory/AH73(W).pdf)).


Today, however, we are thinking in terms of two rival political leaderships: insurgent and government, and two rival military forces: irregular and regular, with the people reduced to being the “objective” or the “terrain” being fought over. I am struck that we no longer can conceive of a people opposing us. Somehow, either insurgents or other political and military entities rise to oppose our actions—not as an expression of popular will, but in spite of it. Thus we feel if we can just shield (protect) the people from the depredations of the insurgents, the “popular will” will naturally fall our way. There’s a sense, dangerous in my mind, that, if given a fair chance, we will always get support. I don’t think that is a safe assumption. There are areas where we will go and governments we may seek to support, where the people will oppose us, regardless of how secure we can make them.

Phil Ridderhof USMC

First thanks for that link. The author gives a good rough overview of the CvC views, and includes also the so often overread concept of the people's war. He also points people with little time to the most influential chapters, but rightly says that all should be read to understand the context better.

I like your thought about the changed view on the nature of the people. Of course both can be objective and oppostion at the same time, it largely depends on the situation you are in. Perhaps the Western nations, especially the USA have a too high opinion of the attractivness of their goals and ways and thus have a hard time to accept that a fair share of a foreign population opposes their presences or policies not matter how "good" they may be or at least seem to be to us.


Firn