What is War

Date Submitted: 01 October 2018

SUMMARY

                Clausewitz naturally started ‘On War’ by defining the core of his book in his first chapter entitled, ‘What is War’. Since he mentioned many philosophies about war, elaborated in this reaction paper are only the two of his most famous statements. First, Clausewitz defined it as, ‘war is an act of force to compel one’s enemy to do one’s will.’  He also identified three reciprocal propositions to support this. First is that emotion-driven leaders rule over savage people, while intellect-driven leaders rule over civilized people. This means that in order to win war, rational thinking precedes passion, be it requires force. Second is that one may only end up at either side- the winning or the losing side. There is no middle. Lastly, he said that to defeat the enemy, one must proportion one’s effort to the enemy’s resistance. Hence, it is reasonable that he likened war with wrestling, as brute force, just like in war, is necessary from both sides.

                Clausewitz’s second famous statement is that, ‘war is a mere continuation of politics by other means.’ In other words, war is not a political act rather it is a political instrument. Hence, when asked whether war is good or bad, Clausewitz would have answered, ‘neither’. For him, there is no such thing as a good or evil war, only good or evil political purpose. Furthermore, Clausewitz expounded this idea with his trinity of war. This includes the violence, hatred and animosity, the play of probabilities and chance and war being a subordinate nature of a political instrument. From Clausewitz view, war is a mix of this trinity and nothing else.

CRITIQUE

If I must describe Clausewitz’s On War, it will be straightforward. Seen from his work beginning from chapter one entitled, ‘What is War’, he defined war in the simplest of words that a rocket scientist as well as a janitor can understand. Don’t get me wrong. Understanding On War’s chapter one is not easy, but this is because the topic of the book, war, itself, is confusing and complicated and Clausewitz did his best to simplify it for anybody to read. The first chapter also indicates the practicality of the whole book. This is because Clausewitz started by indicating that his definition will be from simple to complex. True enough, throughout his first chapter alone and most probably his entire book, Clausewitz is frank and realist in presenting his strong ideas and principles. Hence, as people tend to follow those who are strong, it is not surprising that there are many Clausewitzians around the word then, until now. 

                Clausewitz’s ideas are certainly firm and interesting; however, I think that he over focused on one point. This is pertaining to his clear idea that political objective drives war or as pointed out earlier, war is a political instrument. However, what if there is more to war than this? As Keegan (1991) wrote in his book, ‘A History of Warfare’, war may not always be political in nature but also cultural ^[1]. Examples given are the Aztecs who fought each other for the sole purpose of accumulating captives. Another one are the tribes of Easter Island who exterminated one another in unending competition for the egg of a black tern (a small slender gull). Keegan stated that these men fight for culture. As supplemented by the famous words of Genghis Khan (1227), ‘The greatest joy a man can have is victory in war, that is to conquer one’s enemy’s armies, to pursue them, to deprive them of their possessions, to reduce their families to tears, to ride their horses, and to ravish their wives and daughters^[2].’ This passage pertains to war in a traditional rather than political influence. Some even suggests that war may also be behavioral or biological in nature- a point where Clausewitz failed to take in consideration in his book.

REACTION

                Reading the first chapter of Clausewitz’s On War gives me chills how he defined his perceptions about war. Clausewitz is all about fighting, brute force, attack and gamble. Nonetheless, Clausewitz is solid in his ideas, and as mentioned earlier, he is concise and blunt in discussing his concepts. This maybe because, as he said, his ambition is ‘to write a book that would not be forgotten after two or three years, and that possibly might be picked up more than once by those who are interested in the subject’. In short, he wants his book to be timeless. However, many scholars are claiming this to be inapplicable now just as there are many claiming this to hold true still. One of the arguments presented is that the principles written on the book, On War, only applies to the old war and with the technology we have now, Clausewitz’s book is irrelevant. Reading chapter one alone, I say, some of Clausewitz’s philosophies are seen then until now and tomorrow too. Clausewitz stated that, ‘war is more than a true chameleon that slightly adapts its characteristics to the given case.’  The type of war is mere reflection of its era. During the first unit, the class discussed that the characteristics of war changes but its nature does not. Clausewitz’s statement is similar to this. I also agree when he said that war is an act of force. Evidently, this is seen during WW1, WW2, Iraq War as this is seen during Zamboanga Siege (September 2013) and Marawi Siege (May 2017).

                What I disagree for the first chapter is his statement about war and politics. He mentioned in his first chapter that these two are always side-by-side and nothing more. However, I agree with Keegan and Khan’s point of view. Political objectives do not drive war alone. There are aspects that Clausewitz did not mention in defining war, like, again, cultural, behavioral or biological aspects.  ­Consider the insurgents in Mindanao, though the uprising began from the political objective that is to overthrow the government and end US Imperialism of the country, nowadays Minadanao-enans especially the millennials considered the fighting as part of their norm. Another point of view is that, the children rebel against the government because they see their parents, and their grandparents do the same. This suggests that they take part of the insurgency because of its cultural and behavioral influence respectively.

CONCLUSION

We are cadets, the supposed future leaders of the country. Hence, it is just that we study what we are fighting and preventing to happen in the future. It is rational for us to study war, and best start it through Clausewitz. Hence, this reaction paper.  Clearly, reading the first chapter of Clausewitz’s On War, has made me realize how much I don’t really understand about his ideals. This is particularly with the past lesson where the phrase, war is a continuation of politics, repeated enough loses its meaning. It has become a banal statement, which few really understands. Furthermore, reading Clausewitz’s book is not enough, one must also study his life and the period, which he have lived, to comprehend why he view things as such. Therefore, my take away for this reaction paper is that chapter one, which talks mainly about our job,  does not entails one to read, research and reread its content, it also demands one to think, analyze and rethink.

Furthermore, Carl von Clausewitz is not doubt, a great man. He has left a legacy after his death. A legacy so interesting and provocative that has started many debates and arguments around the world. What is so interesting is that, Clausewitz’s principles is about this three-lettered word, WAR. A simple word that is so complex in meaning. As military strategists and leaders in the future, though confusing, we must understand this concept. Hence, reading chapter one is not enough, in fact reading the Clausewitz’s entire book is insufficient. We must also consider other philosophers’ perception. The phrase, lives are at stake maybe an overstatement, nonetheless it is true. As lawyers, comprehend entire law books, this is ours.

[1] Keegan, J. (1991). A History of Warfare. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/A_History_of_Warfare.html?id=aloBICDFR2MC&redir_esc=y

[2] Khan, G. (1227). Genghis Khan on joy and the meaning of life – Stephen Hicks, Ph.D. Retrieved from https://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/09/10/genghis-khan-on-joy-and-the-meaning-of-life/