History: Claussewitz Strategic Theories (Term Paper Sample)

CLAUSEWITZ STRATEGIC THEORIES

Name:
Course:
Professor’s Name:
March 5, 2015
Clausewitz Strategic Theories
Introduction
Clausewitz’s theories on war prove that war is a culmination of several moral and psychological factors rather than only the conspicuous physical confrontation that is perceived of war. It is conventional that war is an activity that involves an act of aggression against an opponent. Under normal circumstances, the outcomes of war are evaluated under the degree of destruction that has been made during the confrontation. This kind of thinking makes war to have a more physical perspective as compared to a psychological and moral conflict between the warring forces.
In arguing against the physical perspective of war, Clausewitz indicates that there is a major reason why one country will wage war against the other. The indication is that there is an impetus behind the physical confrontation experienced in war and therefore, the warring nations have some level of conflict over some issues that trigger the actual war. The revelation is that the fighting parties are not interested in displaying their sophisticated weapons and power but they wish to prove that their ideology is more superior and it should be the most adored one in case of conflicting interests. Clausewitz, is not purely against the physical part of war his assertions are anchored on the maxim that in war the physical body is used to fight the psychology and moral aspects of war. The physical part of the troops is just a tool of executing deep rooted psychologically and morally oriented perspectives of war. His theories are centered on creating strategies that embrace psychological and moral implications to war.
War as a Way of Fulfilling Policy
Policy is a phenomenon that is achieved because of some ideological argument. A country subscribes to a particular policy because it believes that such a policy will enable it achieve the best for its citizenry. It therefore means that there is some philosophical backing behind any form of policy that a country embraces. A country ensures that its policy is respected by creating administrative mechanisms that will prevent the violation of the perceived policy. These administrative mechanisms represent the existing political system that will always work towards ensuring that their subsequent policy is not under threat by any authority. In most countries, the military represents the government in enforcing laws that protect it.
Clausewitz through war as a way of fulfilling policy tries to explain the difference between hostile intentions and hostile feelings. In his theories, he regards war as an act that is anchored on hostile intentions rather than hostile feelings. The argument here is that people do not engage in war because they have predetermined feelings of hate between themselves. However, it is because one party has some intentions that threaten the existence of the policies of the other party. One of the important aspect in regarding war as form of hostile intentions is meant to further isolate war from physical exchange. If one party has hostile intentions this means that he will engage in war at any time with the perceived enemy. However, if war is based on hostile intentions everything will be calculative and it will allow the strategists to come up with better ways of protecting their policies rather than engaging in a mere physical exchange.
A country will avail all the existing military strategies because there is a need to protect a particular policy that is based on a particular philosophy. The violence exhibited in the battlefield is either a technique of perpetuating a particular policy that is perceived as favorable or stopping which is considered as a threat. The violence experienced in war is therefore meant to enforce some psychological or moral issue. Diverse countries have some ideologies which define their policies and they are considered to be either morally or psychologically satisfying, meaning that any destruction experienced during war is never meant to show the physical prowess of either opponent in the confrontation, an aspect significant in crafting military strategies. According to Herberg-Rothe, war is made of primordial violence, hatred and enmity; political purpose and effect; as well as the play of chance and probability.
Culminating Point of Victory versus Culminating Point of Attack
Clausewitz delves in determining when it can be said that the desired policy that resulted into the war has been achieved. It is not easy to determine when it is appropriate to establish that the existing war should be halted because either side has achieved its intentions. Clausewitz brings into perspectives two aspects that can help strategists to solve this impasse. The culminating point of victory is analyzed through looking at the impact of the attack. Under normal war situations, the initial attack is usually intensive and it gradually diminishes. If it diminishes to a point where there is peace, then this is referred to as the culminating point of victory.
He also indicates that there are cases whereby a single attack could result into an instant state of peace. However, this seems inevitable unless there is a big difference in terms of resources between the two countries to enable the considerably weaker opponent to retaliate. Clausewitz also cautions such as a tactic because in such a case the attacker may exhaust also its manpower and remain with little means meant for a defense. This could be detrimental because the opponent may come up with adequate retaliatory mechanisms to outsmart the initial strong attack. When the situation changes and the other opponent become stronger as compared to the initial aggressor, this forms the culminating point of attack. Understanding of these two points is advisable for military strategists. This is because they can gauge their ability to sustain either of the two points. A country that has limited military machinery, can capitalize on the culminating point of victory. This is because it may not be in a position to sustain a one on one confrontation with the other opponent.
The Military Genius
In his theories, Clausewitz also looks at the characteristics of military commanders. Military commanders are a determining factor in any war situation. This is the juniors depend on them for effective execution of the planned military strategy. The indication here is that in case of an incompetent military commander, the planned strategy could end up being functionless because of gaps in implementation of the desired strategy. Clausewitz observes that a commander is not someone who should be super human but he should have finer skills that are readily compatible with any war context. Management of war responds to the contingency theory. This refers to the ability of an individual to handle a situation according to the underlying contextual experiences.
Clausewitz summarizes that a military commander should be intuitive and decisive. An intuitive person is one who has skillfulness to perceive issues that may happen in future with some level of certainty. This is based on the individual’s ability to have an effective risk analysis process. Such a commander will know when it is appropriate to attack or retaliate with less risks of being defeated. This requires a higher level of intelligence that will enable an individual to make a comparison between alternatives and come with the one that suits the existing conditions. A decisive military commander is a major asset to any war strategy. After making a conclusive risk analysis process, one should be consistent with the chosen alternative to avoid cases whereby there will be mixed outcomes.
Limited and Absolute War
It is difficult to determine the magnitude that a war may take. War can be continuous or it may be meant to achieve a short term objective. Clausewitz defines limited and absolute war through sociological, philosophical and empirical perspectives. Sociologically, he argues that existing wars in the society are fought with the society itself. The implication of this assertion is that wars within the society will always be recurring because in a society, culture and traditions are passed into subsequent generations. Philosophically, Clausewitz argues that war is as a result of force and there is no logical limitation to an action related to force. Clausewitz is suggesting that war may be limited but the action meted during the war is meant to create a permanent situation. War should not be meant for physical exchanges it should create a situation where the intention of the aggressor becomes dominant on a permanent basis.
Empirically, he argues that the intention of war is meant to create a permanent destruction on the enemy. This therefore means that in war there should be a permanent situation achieved after an attack. The three perspectives seem to be moving away from the physical perspective of war. This is because they concentrate on explaining the significance of achieving situational difference rather than a physical conquest. For example, if a country decides to wage war against a country that supports terrorism, the target should be defeating terrorism rather than fighting the administrative units within such a country.
The Three Extremes
Clausewitz defines war from three perspectives that he refers to as extremes. In these extremes, the theorist tries to establish the level of interaction between opponents. The first extreme is borrowed from the philosophical definition when he was explaining about limited and absolute war. It dwells on the maxim that there is no logical determination of applying force considering that war is realized through force. This therefore means that war should not be determined in terms of the degree of force meted to the opponents. This concurs wi...