Although many have believed that Clausewitz advocated total war as the scarcely kind of war worth considering, a careful reading material of his works reveals the falsity of this notion. He noted that even wars which are total in nature are not net in result. All of the combatants in the Napoleonic Wars survived the conflict, including France, which suffered unequivocal defeat. Moreover, the despotic defeat of a nation does not mean the goal of its population or even its political identity, as has been witnessed since the minute World War. However, total war, or the "pure concept" of war, strains to subjugate an enemy and disarm him. Clausewitz describes this as "Absolute War" (Clausewitz, 1984, pp. 90-91).
consort to Clausewitz, Absolute War is that in which the combatants seek the absolute remove of their enemies. In view of much(prenominal)(prenominal) aims, the combatants must necessarily seek the final defeat of their enemies and hostilities must not be aborted until such(prenominal) aims are achieved. Under this theory, warfare involves the use of all essence available to defeat an enemy and the repeated use of such actor until defeat of this enemy is achieved (Clausewitz, 1984, pp. 75-89, 579).
There are 3 objectives in absolute war: desolation of the enemy's armed forces, vocation of the ene
Another military theorist whose ideas coincide with those of Clausewitz is sunshine Tzu. This ancient Chinese writer trust to paper a set of rules which have had a large influence on Eastern military thought. Although some of Sun Tzu's principles contradict those articulated by Clausewitz, most parallel the German writer's ideas. In particular, both theorists advocate the subordination of military considerations to insurance and both state that the real goal of warfare is the destruction of the enemy's will, rather than simply the destruction of his forces (Bassford, 1998, p. 20).
Clausewitz, C. (1984 edition). On War. (M. Howard and P. Paret eds.). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
From these observations, Clausewitz ultimately derived the principle that defense is stronger than aversion. Defense has a negative theatrical role, while offense has a positive purpose. The positive purpose seeks to inflict an terminus upon an opponent, while a negative purpose seeks to prevent such an outcome. Thus, a combatant seeking a negative purpose can achieve his objective with less force and exercise than one seeking a positive purpose. Taken further, this means that a combatant on the defensive can last an enemy on the offensive and wear him down. Clausewitz uses the example of Frederick the Great, who hold his forces during the Seven Years War, employing them carefully to wear out his enemies (Clausewitz, 1984, pp. 93-94).
Clausewitz state that friction in war consist primarily of danger, animal(prenominal) effort, and the "fog of war." Danger and physical effort were described in the previous paragraph. Soldiers must endure the tremendous noise of inconsistency and the sight of physical carnage. The fog of war, on the other hand, represents the mix-up and lack of intelligence facing all commanders. This represents the primary difference between war on paper and war in reality. The commander almost never knows as much just about his enemy as the scholar studying the
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment