Further, while plenty of “irrational and non-purposive or counter-purposive actions” happen in the workplace, the stress and danger and aroused emotions of war and violence make such behaviors more likely and more severe in their impact — meaning people get killed who might not otherwise. Compared to that, other human affairs appear to be much more orderly and reasonable.

because many irrational and non-purposive or counter-purposive actions do happen when men work violence on each other

True enough, but just as true if you end the sentence at ‘work’–i.e. this is just part of the human condition.

i, too, am dogged by doubt that i didn’t serve. but i keep convincing myself my personality would have been a horrible match with the military. plus, i was an unreconstructed liberal pacifist then ;-)

My comments:

I have not read Zen’s previous writing but can easily supply examples to illustrate. Anyone reading military history will be struck by descriptions of quality of spirit based on identity, shared values, professionalism, idealism, etc. It has happened many times in history that a kingdom, country, nation, tribe, etc has depended on some other group (ally, subject people, mercenaries, etc) to do the acutal fighting. Sometimes this works well. In other circumstances it has led to disaster, not least because people who have killed are less likely to compliantly accept their post conflict status (time for a pay raise/we can rule better than you, etc). LG will no doubt find passage of von Clausewitz that are relevant to this suject.

When I entered university ROTC was considered something for stupid losers to do. I changed my ideas later. As for personal guilt, I feel little. The negative attitudes of the US at the time were due to Vietnam. Morevover, better educated Americans who drove the intellectual content of the anti-War effort could not make the connection between stopping Communism in South East Asia with their (comfortatble) lives in the US. One can debate the reasons for this.

When I learned almost 10 years ago that the US awards citizenship in return for service in the US military, I was shocked. I have read justifications of this in the historical record (e.g., Civil War recruited among freshly arrived immigrants). I remain unconvinced.

Currently I am living in a Nordic country. Sweden lacks money for its armed forces. It has been reduced to “voluntary conscription”. Every male must serve but it is impossible to admit them all. (In some exercises soldiers ran off landing craft and shouted “ra-ta-ta-ta-ta, I shot you you’re dead” because there is no ammunition. The armed forces must deny entry to conscripts, while at the same time jailing those who refuse to register in political protest. The official desire is to increase the number of women, while denying neo-Nazis and other off-color people from serving. Most of the work that the army has has shifted from defense of Sweden to EU/UN international assignments.

Finland has not and will not go this direction. Who would prevail in war games between Finland and Sweden today?

Keep being a productive backbencher, and I will get you into the acknowledgments.

If you ask me nice I’ll let you join late.

Men are hardwired to consider violence. To what degree do women think about it? Does Clausewitz discuss this?

Feels like I should get a copy.

Is he a Rationalist? Yes, but only in the same way that Jesus was a Jew, or that Martin Luther was a Catholic.

So, the intersection of rational decision making with culture and with emotion are both inherent in Clausewitz, at least as I am understanding him.

Great intro, look forward to reading more.

Sean: “all of this reading of primary texts and usefulness to modern thinkers is a tacit criticism of postmodern literary theory. C’s logical approach is worth studying (legitimate parts of the postmodern critique notwithstanding).”

This is true, and Clausewitz’s emphasis on rationality is paralleled by the dominance of rational choice in political science during the 80s and 90s, although critiques have emerged from postmodern critical and literary theories that focus on culture and discourse. Nonetheless, the debate between rationality and relativism should not be understood as an ongoing and neverending debate, like realists and liberals, science and history, and positivism and postpositvism. Rationality and culture can in fact be considered complementary, as has been argued by Alex Wendt and James Fearon. If this is true in political science, then it also should be true for military theory, meaning that there must be a theoretical way to reconcile Clausewitz and his postmodern counterparts, either Boyd or Sun Tzu.

i, too, am dogged by doubt that i didn’t serve. but i keep convincing myself my personality would have been a horrible match with the military. plus, i was an unreconstructed liberal pacifist then ;-)

So, when we read any writer who says “no one actually reads Clausewitz” we can all say “well, I have.”

better, you can ask ‘have you read C?’ ;-)

all of this reading of primary texts and usefulness to modern thinkers is a tacit criticism of postmodern literary theory. C’s logical approach is worth studying (legitimate parts of the postmodern critique notwithstanding).

Clausewitz does not make up acronyms, neologisms or cook up his own idiosyncratic terminology.

hmm. we associate with someone who does this quite a bit ;-)

There need never be “one killer slide”.

dude. you better watch it! ;-)

Clausewitz would be proud!

If this roundtable were a battle, your introductory post represents a splendid opening volley that serves to momentarily silence those who find Clausewitz irrelevent, leaving them stunned and seeking cover. They may return to the firing line, but not before searching about for something to counter your forceful words.

Great start to the Roundtable!

I am looking forward to the catharsis of putting thoughts to ‘blog, and seeing what others have to say about Karl von. There is no doubt that Clausewitz is very relevant today — not only due to his profound influence on the military organizations that followed, but also his insights into the nature of humankind in the midst of profound struggles. Quite a contrast to Jomini!

vr/ shane

Your comments are raising the bar on the participants. Your final comment that your Book 1 post is coming soon made it worse.

I have to comment the correct translation of Sun Tsu’s work. Commonly, it is translated as Sun Tsu’s “Art of War”. The Chinese is “Sun Zi Bingfa” or literally “Sun Tsu’s Soldier’s Method”. “Art of War” sounds much better than “Soldier’s Method”. I have read a little bit of it. My impression is its content is very instructive, but profound (really).

I particularly like the five point summation at the end. It all generally true and useful, especially as I believe that “systems thinking” has no place in war and a very limited use in warfare. Patterns appears to be a extremely useful way to think, and the association with Boyd’s “Patterns in Conflict” is not lost on me.

In addition, clarity of thought is also exhibited by clarity of writing. This is where Clausewitz excels and the majority of modern writers fail.

The one quibble I would have is the mention of Sun-Tzu. Sun-Tzu wrote a “On Strategy” not On War. They are two entirely separate subjects. CvC is essential reading for a modern officer. Sun-Tzu, very much less so. If you do want to Tzu, then get the R.L. Wing translation.

“Does this orientation in some way diminish his value as an analyst, because many irrational and non-purposive or counter-purposive actions do happen when men work violence on each other? I think not, and we will see what he makes of what we might call “non-instrumental violence” later in the book. But it may suffice to observe that the study of organized, instrumental violence is a large enough topic to keep us busy, and one with legitimate boundaries which justify taking it as a field of study in itself.”

Well put. I think there are clear boundaries regarding “instrumental violence” whether we are talking the Westphalian nation-state or the ancien regime or the classical ancient world vs. the kinds of atavistic violence of say, the ritualistic and religiously motivated battlefield tactics of warfare of the Aztecs. They are not the same to my mind and the dissimilarities between the two do much to explain the supreme triumph of Cortez and Spanish arms over a vast empire

Other members of the roundtable will probably disagree with me but that’s what will make this discussion worthwhile and interesting. In any event, you are correct, even with clearly defined borders, instrumental violence is a very large field of study.

Great post.