- This topic has 5 voices and 12 replies.
-
Posts
-
I have been rather absent around here in the last month or so — I have been neck deep in researching for a paper on different interpretations of Clausewitz's On War. Basically, I'm working on a thesis that seeks to show that most mis-interpretations and mis-representations of On War are largely due to missing the dialectical argument — the examination of issues by exploring polar opposites. To put it in a more succinct (though less academic) way, most folks who want to show that Clausewitz belongs on the scrap heap of history have either read On War selectively, or more likely, haven't read it at all. Compounding the problem are self-proclaimed Clausewitzians who read On War much the same way many folks today read the Bible - they pull a verse at random, completely out of context, and stretch and twist it to fit their current circumstances (anyone note that the world did indeed NOT end today at 6 PM?). When this is done with On War the issues are so much more complex, precisely because Clausewitz largely wrote On War as a dialectical argument - thus, are the quotes being pulled for the "bumper-sticker principle of war" du jour come from the thesis, the antithesis, or the resulting synthesis? From the ideal or the polar opposite?Needless to say, my head currently hurts from parsing Clausewitz and his many detractors (and some of his disciples) for the past several weeks. Now, I need to make sense of it all and express it concisely on paper (or more correctly, in electrons).Just venting a little and procrastinating from the next essay. ;D
So aren't there other Clausewitz scholars who have already attacked the cafeteria-style readings of his text? Or will you be among the first?
There are others, although I'm trying a different tack. Most that I have encountered (written over the last 10 years) are specifically looking to counter either Martin Van Crevald or John Keegan point for point. Back up another 50 years, and the critics are declaring Clausewitz obsolete (absolute war had found its essence in nuclear war) and war could no longer be an extension of policy (or politik). Back up 60 years and Clausewitz was to blame for Hitler and the Nazis. Back up 80 years and the critics were blaming Clausewitz for the carnage of World War I (Liddell Hart). Taken out of the context of the whole, there is validity for each of these arguments – but that's part of the dialectic. I intend to argue that one must always consider the reciprocity and duality of the dialectic – the balance of the opposites – when interpreting Clausewitz. Part of it is remembering that On War was written during a time of Enlightenment. The philosophies of Kant, Hegel, and Montesquieu were prevalent in learned German society, so they no doubt influenced Clausewitz's writings. Not to get too metaphysical, but in absolute war, there is limited war (and in limited war, absolute and escalating violence). In attack, there is defense (and in defense, attack). In Clausewitz's primary “remarkable/miraculous trinity” there is passion, chance, and reason – yet within passion there is reason; within chance and uncertainty there is probability and confidence; and within reason there is irrationality. Basically I'm looking to present an examination of On War from a 30,000 foot view – not to get caught up in individual arguments but to look at the structure of Clausewitz's method of inquiry as a means of understanding what he has left behind in his unfinished works.I'm still refining (of course) but basically any interpretation of Clausewitz that can be neatly fit into a nutshell probably belongs there. Professor Christopher Bassford wrote Clausewitz in English but he certainly didn't write Clausewitz Simplified or Clausewitz for Dummies.
If I can find it, would you be interested in a recently written (by a LTC I think) essay? Using Clauswitzian doctrine, the author focused on OIF and took an anti-counterinsurgency approach.
http://www.public.navy.mil/usff/documents/gentile.pdfI'm going to send you some other links as well.
Having read two different English translations of Clausewitz and struggled through him in the original German, I sympathize with you. I also tend to agree with you that his work is more often cherry-picked for nuggets then used as a holistic whole. Often, those quotes that are used are use out of context. I have taken particular umbrage with the extensive misuse of the quote about war being an extension of politics. That has been misused so often the true meaning of the passage where it occurs has been completely lost. I take the passage to be about civil or at least governmental control of the military being paramount. That is certainly the way it was interpreted by the Prussian army in it's mid-19th Century heyday.By the way, which translation of Clausewitz are using, the Howard and Paret version? It seems to be the standard English translation today and I have o say that it sticks pretty close to the original in translating concepts. It is not always easy to translate the metaphysical terms so liberally sprinkled throughout Clausewitz and they do a very good job. I would be very interested in reading your paper when complete if you would allow me to. Best of luck in tackling a difficult subject.
I'm using the Howard and Paret translation – buffered primarily by the analysis and critiques of Hew Strachan, Christopher Bassford, and Jon Sumida. Those three take somewhat different approaches, but between the three of them there is a pretty good analysis of interpretation or mis-interpretation of the original German in the Howard and Paret version. For example, Bassford critiques the interpretation that “War is a duel” between two parties to a more appropriate translation would be that “war is a wrestling contest” between two parties – he claims that it is a better fit for the original German and uses the whole “center of gravity” bit to support his illustration – is he right or wrong? I can't say, but his argument makes sense and lends a little better perspective on the use if the term “center of gravity”. Likewise, there is extensive discussion on how to interpret politik – and whether or not it should be consistently interpreted as politics or policy or some other form. Then there is the discussion around interpreting wunderlich – which Howard and Paret interpret as “remarkable” as in Clausewitz's primary “remarkable” trinity — Bassford recommends “miraculous” – suggesting a more “divine” nature of the trinity (Clausewitz sure likes his trinities and grouping things in threes).Of course I'm also reading extensively the supporting essays by Howard, Paret, and Bernard Brodie - as well as W.B. Gallie, Azar Gat, Colin Gray, and a laundry list of others. Then there is the supporting background from Kant, Hegel, and Montesquieu.Even from the very beginning of reading Clausewitz, one needs to remember that he was channeling Scharnhorst much more than he was documenting Napoleon. Unlike Jomini, who saw the majority of his military service as part of an army that rolled from victory to victory, Clausewitz witnessed most of his war experience getting kicked across Europe by Napoleon - right up until the French retreat from Moscow, which was a highly formative experience (along with his captivity in France after Jena.
I have a copy of On War here at the house, but I never got a chance to read it. I don't understand the premise of Clausewitz being “outdated” or “obsolete” in historical terms. If he influenced military theory, and we know he did, he will remain integral to the evolution of warfare and war doctrine. In fact, his theories can be recycled ad infinitum with each new technological invention introduced on the battlefield. Clausewitz is no less relevant today than Sun Tsu and I gather nobody is treating Sun Tsu in this manner.
You are absolutely right in that Clausewitz's work is cherry picked, but that is true of just about every military theorist. The same thing happens to Jomini and Sun-Tzu. I think Clausewitz is picked so much because he was German and the Germans had pretty impressive run of military success in the 100 years after his work was published. His opaque writing style also makes it easy to take and use his words out of context, often the context itself is hard to understand. It does not help that he died with the work unfinished.
Nothing quite like the editing and re-writing phase to get the paper down to the acceptable / required page / word limits. What to cut, what to reduce, and what to keep….More head banging...
For anyone who is interested (sorry about the formatting – not sure everything carried through the “cut & paste”
BibliographyBassford, Christopher. Clausewitz in English: The Reception of Clausewitz in Britain and America 1815-1945. New York: Oxford University Press. 1994.---. ?Clausewitz and His Works? Lecture at the Army War College, 1992. Available from http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/Cworks/Works.htm (accessed February 28, 2011).Betts, Richard K. ?Conventional Strategy: New Critics, Old Choices.? International Security, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Spring 1983), pp. 140-162. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2626735 (accessed February 28, 2011).Beyerchen, Alan. ?Clausewitz, nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War.? International Security, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Winter, 1992-1993), pp. 59-90. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539130 (accessed March 2, 2011).Brodie, Bernard. ?A Guide to Reading On War.? In On War. Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 641-714. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.---. ?In Quest of the Unknown Clausewitz.? Review of Clausewitz and the State, by Peter Paret. International Security, Vol. 1, No.3 (Winter 1977). 62-69. http://jstor.org/stable/2626655 (Accessed March 2, 2011).---. ?The Continuing Relevance of On War.? In On War. Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 45-58. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.Bruscino, Thomas. ?Clausewitz and Contemporary War.? Review of Clausewitz and Contemporary War by Antulio J. Echevarria II. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Joint Forces Quarterly, Issue 56, 1st Quarter 2010.Cannon, Maj. Michael W. ?Clausewitz For Beginners.? Airpower Journal, Summer 1989. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj89/cannon.html (accessed April 4, 2011)Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.Cohen, Carl. Communism, Fascism, and Democracy: The Theoretical Foundations, 2nd ed. New York: Random House, 1972),English, Allan D. Changing Face of War: Learning from History. Montreal: McGill-Queen?s University Press, 1998. Available from: http://site.ebrary.com/lib/apus/edf.action?p00=&docID=10141529Fleming, Bruce. ?Can Reading Clausewitz Save Us from Future Mistakes?? Parameters: U.S. Army War College, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring 2004), pp. 62-76. http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/ (accessed February 28, 2011).Fischer, David Hackett. Historians? Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought. New York: Harper Perennial, 1970. Fontenot, Col. Gregory. ?Decision Making in War? Review of How Wars End: Why we Always Fight the Last Battle by Gideon Rose. Army Magazine, Vol. 61, No. 4, April 2011.Gallie, W.B. ?Clausewitz Today.? European Journal of Sociology Vol. 19, No. 1 (1978), pp. 142-167. Available from APUS library as PDF document.Gardner, Nikolas. ?Resurrecting the ?Icon?: The Enduring Relevance of Clausewitz?s On War.? Strategic Studies Quarterly. Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 2009) 119-133.Gat, Azar. ?Clausewitz and the Marxists: Yet Another Look.? Journal of Contemporary History Vol. 27, No. 2 (Apr 1992), pp. 363-382. http://www.jstor.org/stable/260915 (accessed March 2, 2011).Gray, Colin S. ?Clausewitz, history, and the future strategic world.? In The Past as Prologue: The Importance of History to the Military Profession. Edited by Williamson Murray and Richard Hunt Sinnreich, 111-132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 2006Handel, Michael I. ?Who is Afraid of Carl von Clausewitz? A Guide to the Perpelxed.? United States Naval War College, Summer 1997. Available from: http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Handel/Handlart.htm (accessed February 28, 2011).Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. ?Lectures on the Philosophy of History.? In Communism, Fascism, and Democracy: The Theoretical Foundations, 2nd edition, edited Carl Cohen, 40-47. New York: Random House, 1972.Howard, Michael. ?The Influence of Clausewitz.? In On War. Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 27-44. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.Hughes, Daniel J. Editor. Moltke: On the Art of War ? Selected Writings. Novato, CA: Presidio Press, 1993.Kaiser, David. ?Back to Clausewitz.? Review of Clausewitz?s On War, A Biography by Hew Strachan, Clausewitz and Contemporary War by Antulio J. Echevarria II, and Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century by Hew Strachan and Andreas Herberg-Rothe. The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 32, No. 4 (August 2009) 667-685. http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/ (accessed April 5, 2011).Kant, Immanuel. ?Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals.? In Ethical Philosophy, translated by James W. Ellington, 1-62. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.Kaempf, Sebastian. "Violence and Victory: Guerrilla Warfare, 'Authentic Self-Affirmation' and the Overthrow of the Colonial State." Third World Quarterly Vol. 30, No. 1 (February 2009), 129-146. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 4, 2011).Klinger, Janeen. ?The Social Science of Carl von Clausewitz.? Parameters: U.S. Army War College, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Spring 2006), 79-89. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed March 1, 2011).Liddell Hart, Basil Henry. Strategy. New York: Meridian, 1991.Moody, Peter R. Jr. ?Clausewitz and the Fading Dialectic of War.? World Politics, Vol. 31, No. 3 (April 1979), 417-433. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2009996 (accessed March 5, 2011).Murray, Williamson and Richard Hunt Sinnreich. Past as Prologue: The Importance of History to the Military Profession. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.O?Connell, Robert L. Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.Paret, Peter. ?Clausewitz.? In Makers of Modern Strategy: from Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age, edited by Peter Paret, 186-213. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986.---. Clausewitz and the State: The Man, His Theories, and His Time. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.---. ?The Genesis of On War.? In On War. Edited and Translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, 3-25. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976.---. Understanding War: Essays on Clausewitz and the History of Military Power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.Reid, Brian Holden. ?Michael Howard and the Evolution of Modern War Studies.? The Journal of Military History, Vol. 73, No. 3, (July 2009): 869-904. http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/ (accessed March 1, 2011).Roxborough, Ian. ?Clausewitz and the Sociology of War.? The British Journal of Sociology, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1944) 619-636. http://www.jstor.org/stable/591886 (accessed February 3, 2011)Schuurman, Bart. ?Clausewitz and the ?New Wars? Scholars.? Parameters: U.S. Army War College, Vol. 40, No. 1 (Spring 2010) 89-100. http://www.proquest.com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/ (accessed February 28, 2011). Strachan, Hew. ?A Clausewitz for Every Season.? The American Interest, Vol. 2, No. 6 (July-August 2007), 29-35.---. Clausewitz?s On War: A Biography. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2007.Sumida, Jon Tetsuro. Decoding Clausewitz: A New Approach to On War. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2008.Summers, Col. Harry G. ?Clausewitz: Eastern and Western Approaches to War? Air University Review, March ?April 1986. http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1986/mar-apr/summers.html (accessed April 4, 2011).Wick, Warner A. Introduction to Ethical Philosophy, translated by James W. Ellington, xi-lxii. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
Very nice list of sources. If I were a professor, I would be getting aroused *cough* well you know what I mean. 🙂
Very nice list of sources. If I were a professor, I would be getting aroused *cough* well you know what I mean. 🙂
I know what you mean -- was a lot of reading though, then distilling my thoughts and interpretations as well as supporting statements into the word/page limit.... but, that's why not everyone does it. Learned a lot in the process, though.
