Relevance of Clausewitz to Conflict in the 21st Century - Essay Example

View of Simpson and Echevarria on the relevance of Clausewitz to conflict in the 21st century Name Course Lecture Date Introduction The past 8 years have seen a flourishing of new articles and books on Carl von Clausewitz and his famous work on War, this is despite the fact that the Clausewitz died in without completing his book. Still, there are various international conferences that have been held, where the Prussian thinker has been the main subject. For instance, in November 2007, the military school of Saint-Cyr held an international conference where various views and thought raised by the thinker were discussed. Notably, this new wave is indeed a reaction to various conflicts and wars that have continued to characterize the world today. Elime Simpsons and Echevarria are among various writers that who have used the work done by Clausewitz in the current warfare experienced in the world. It is obvious that both authors have different view with the relevance of the thinker’s work in the 21 century. Simpsons has expressed his view through his book War from the Ground Up; relating war in Afghanistan with Clausewitz’s masterwork, while Echevarria has done the same through Clausewitz and Contemporary War which focuses on War on Terror. Differences in their views The definition of war according to Clausewitz has indeed some relevance to the wars observed in the 21st century. However, Echevarria and Simpsons, in their books, differ in their interpretation of its relevance. In his book, Echevaria seem to support, Clausewitz’s view that different stage war in order to pursue political objectives. Echevarria argues that this definition is wrongly interpreted to mean that war is basically an act of a country policy to introduce in order to achieve a political goal1. However, he admits that part of confusion that is seen to be surrounding this misunderstanding branch from the ambiguity of the word politic, which in German means both politics and policy. He still blames Clausewitz for not defining the multivalent term in a way that would be understood. Echevarria noted that German soldiers and scholars have continued to puzzle over the usage of the term2. He concurs with one of the historians who argue that the term Politik comprised of objective and subjective elements. Echevarria continues to argue that the usage of term and the historical context in which Clausewitz used meant three things. Firstly, he intended the term to mean policy, that is, the extension of the determination of the state, the verdict to pursue a political, goal or otherwise. This is true in the 21st century. Most of conflicts and wars observed in most countries especially in Africa are also of persuasion of political goals. Secondly, the term meant politics and the basic external affairs, the weakness and strength offered to a state by its resources, geo-political position, treaties and alliances, and as an continuing process of internal dealings between the personalities of the state policy makers and the main decision making institutions of the state. Lastly, the thinker used the term as a causative force, offering an explanatory framework or pattern for viewing war’s expression over time 3Clausewitz’s clarity on war, it is not a mere state of policy but also a political instrument is relevant to the War on Terror. The thinker identifies two types of political objects; total destruction of the opponent or dictation terms of peace to the enemy. This is well demonstrated in the War on Terror as the Americans are using various means to totally destroy the terrorists, the Al Qaeda. As stated by the US government, the state is using this means in order to spread peace and democracy to the Islamic countries especially those in the Middle East. On the other hand, Simpsons has a different view of the usage of word politics in defining war. He argues that the increase use of nuclear weaponry, counter terrorism, narco-trafficking transnational warfare and the rise in compartmentalization of military and political leadership which is evident in the modern world have slightly rendered obsolete this Clausewitz’s definition of war. In fact the military thought that was offered by this thinker, has no relevant information to the military of the 21st century. Indeed, he concurs with one of the author who asserts that the thinker’s masterwork on war is overdue. War has been and will be fought not only to seek national interest but also to kill foes, convert people from one religion to another, for entertainment or even for obtaining booty. With the above argument, Simpsons rules out and affirms that Clausewitz’s philosophy of war-country wage conflict and wars in order to pursue political objectives disappeared4. Indeed, he asserts that as concluded by one of the historians, 5the thinker’s work is diminished as it fails to address war and conflict as a cultural phenomenon and why it occurs. In fact, his argues that the thinker’s masterpiece views war from one perspective, that is, within the Western state paradigm 6 Of importance to relate with the above view of politics is the fact that Simpsons noted that for Clausewitz, after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, a limited form of war would basically function so long as it has been understood that the enemy follow suit. The function of conflict and war in Napoleon paradigm led to the previous wars be redundant, Simpsons7 asserts that it was impossible to enter into war Napoleon with a limited political goals and less use of force. This is relevant to the present world in that it is quite impossible not to use war while using force for political purpose. Simpson’s argument is mainly based from the observed wars in Afghanistan. He asserts that the failure or success of counter uprising operations of war in this country is essentially measure by the state political impact, mostly on the local communities. Various groups interested in the wars occurring in Afghanistan approach and view the conflict with different lenses. For the majority the war is part of war against the West while others believe that the war is only limited to Afghanistan and others, as a local issue. Essentially, while analyzing, Afghanistan situation using Clausewitz thoughts, he indeed acknowledge that politics may play a major role but in this case culture had already taken over the situation. According to Echevarria8, Clausewitz identified various beliefs of the significant nature of war that may be regarded relevant in the 21st century. One of these beliefs is that war is basically a force to compel an opponent to do the will of the attacker. Clausewitz came up with this tenet during the Napoleon Wars. In the present world, the tenet hold true for the two World Wars and in the war on terror. In the War on Terror, the Al Qaeda’s group has stated its goal which is to incite, move and continue to mobilize several Islamic nations to rise against the US and the Western countries. Therefore, Al Qaeda is applying the force of Islamic nations to force the United State to end its missions in the Middle East. The aims of the United States in War on Terror are to decrease terrorism to localized, unorganized, nonsponsored occurrence and to convince all responsible national and international organizations to adopt a policy that would lead to no tolerance to terrorism in the world and accept tot delegitimize terrorism. Indeed, this falls in Clausewitz belief named above as the US is using all instruments of influence and nation power in Afghanistan and Iraq to destroy the movement of terrorist and their support. Clausewitz admitted that it is important that one establish the type of war being embarked on, should not mistake it and try to turn it to something that is not of its nature. These kinds of wars are what the thinker defined as absolute wars. They are saturated and governed by the push for decision. The relevance of the above concept to the War on Terror is apparent as the kind of war the world is dealing with; seeking to get rid of terrorist organizations and the supports through military actions. Clausewitz described the concept of Trinity as present in every war. It is composed of hatred, enmity and violence9. This concept is relevant to War on Terror. The violent attack that was carried out in US by the Al Qaeda was driven by feelings of hostility and enmity. Subsequently, that attacks that carried out by the US on Iraq and Afghanistan were driven by the same factors. However, these elements of the trinity are very significant in explaining the onset of the War on Terror. Simpsons clearly uses the principle of polarity in relating Clausewitz work with the current wars. This is different from Echavarria’s observation. According to Clausewitz, most influential war is that is as a result of opposing forces10. The polarity that is between the enemies makes the war a contest that provides a resolution or a decision. Lack of polarity leads to lose of decisive political interpretation. This relevant especially to the Bosnia conflict where the UN forces failed to get decisive outcome as their political leaders took a morally turn. Tony Blair was influenced by this understanding to avoid such a scenario in Kosovo11. Indeed, it is safe to admit Clausewitz’s masterwork is a prism through which we look at the conflicts and wars in the 21st century. Echevariia continues to emphasize that Clausewitz concept of war still remains valid in the 21st century. \ References Echevarria, Artulio. lausewitz and the Nature of the War on Terror’, in Hew Strachan and Andreas Herberg- Rothe, Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 196-218., 2007. Simpson, Emile. War from the ground up: twenty-first century combat as politics. London: Hurst & Co.pp. 41-67, 2012. Read More

Firstly, he intended the term to mean policy, that is, the extension of the determination of the state, the verdict to pursue a political, goal or otherwise. This is true in the 21st century. Most of conflicts and wars observed in most countries especially in Africa are also of persuasion of political goals. Secondly, the term meant politics and the basic external affairs, the weakness and strength offered to a state by its resources, geo-political position, treaties and alliances, and as an continuing process of internal dealings between the personalities of the state policy makers and the main decision making institutions of the state.

Lastly, the thinker used the term as a causative force, offering an explanatory framework or pattern for viewing war’s expression over time 3Clausewitz’s clarity on war, it is not a mere state of policy but also a political instrument is relevant to the War on Terror. The thinker identifies two types of political objects; total destruction of the opponent or dictation terms of peace to the enemy. This is well demonstrated in the War on Terror as the Americans are using various means to totally destroy the terrorists, the Al Qaeda.

As stated by the US government, the state is using this means in order to spread peace and democracy to the Islamic countries especially those in the Middle East. On the other hand, Simpsons has a different view of the usage of word politics in defining war. He argues that the increase use of nuclear weaponry, counter terrorism, narco-trafficking transnational warfare and the rise in compartmentalization of military and political leadership which is evident in the modern world have slightly rendered obsolete this Clausewitz’s definition of war.

In fact the military thought that was offered by this thinker, has no relevant information to the military of the 21st century. Indeed, he concurs with one of the author who asserts that the thinker’s masterwork on war is overdue. War has been and will be fought not only to seek national interest but also to kill foes, convert people from one religion to another, for entertainment or even for obtaining booty. With the above argument, Simpsons rules out and affirms that Clausewitz’s philosophy of war-country wage conflict and wars in order to pursue political objectives disappeared4.

Indeed, he asserts that as concluded by one of the historians, 5the thinker’s work is diminished as it fails to address war and conflict as a cultural phenomenon and why it occurs. In fact, his argues that the thinker’s masterpiece views war from one perspective, that is, within the Western state paradigm 6 Of importance to relate with the above view of politics is the fact that Simpsons noted that for Clausewitz, after the defeat of Napoleon in 1815, a limited form of war would basically function so long as it has been understood that the enemy follow suit.

The function of conflict and war in Napoleon paradigm led to the previous wars be redundant, Simpsons7 asserts that it was impossible to enter into war Napoleon with a limited political goals and less use of force. This is relevant to the present world in that it is quite impossible not to use war while using force for political purpose. Simpson’s argument is mainly based from the observed wars in Afghanistan. He asserts that the failure or success of counter uprising operations of war in this country is essentially measure by the state political impact, mostly on the local communities.

Various groups interested in the wars occurring in Afghanistan approach and view the conflict with different lenses. For the majority the war is part of war against the West while others believe that the war is only limited to Afghanistan and others, as a local issue. Essentially, while analyzing, Afghanistan situation using Clausewitz thoughts, he indeed acknowledge that politics may play a major role but in this case culture had already taken over the situation. According to Echevarria8, Clausewitz identified various beliefs of the significant nature of war that may be regarded relevant in the 21st century.

Read More