Comments on: Clausewitz, On War, Book 2: The “theory” of war is purely a means of professional formation.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 03:05:11 +0000

JosephFouche — Thanks very much for this.

By: josephfouche

josephfouche — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 20:35:47 +0000

There are three English translations of Kautilya’s Arthashastra:

The 1915 translation by Rudrapatna Shamasastry:

http://projectsouthasia.sdstate.edu/docs/history/primarydocs/Arthashastra/index.htm

This one is available online but it is not based on the best sources and the language is bad high Victorian.

The 1972 translation by R.P. Kangle

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/9997359275?ie=UTF8&tag=thecomofpubsa-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=9997359275

The Kangle translation is the most complete and based on the best sources but there are few copies available from U.S. booksellers and ordering it from the original Indian publisher is a somewhat laborious process. I own it but I haven’t gotten around to reading it.

The 1987 translation by L. N. Rangarajan

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0140446036?ie=UTF8&tag=thecomofpubsa-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0140446036

There are more copies of the Rangarajan translation available from U.S. booksellers. It has good explanatory notes and illustrations. While this translation may be the most accessible, it’s incomplete: it only excerpts from the Arthashastra. This one I’ve read.

The Kangle translation is the best translation. However, the Rangarajan is a better introductory text. A good introductory volume to read alongside the Arthashastra is The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra by Roger Boesche:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0739106074?ie=UTF8&tag=thecomofpubsa-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0739106074

I expand upon the Arthashastra at greater length here:

http://committeeofpublicsafety.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/neglected-strategists-kautilya-the-arthashastra-the-spectrum-of-power-and-5gw/

focusing upon how Kautilya provided a better taxonomy of war 2000+ years ago that any *GW framework has in the last 20:

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:50:14 +0000

“The Indian strategist Kautilya wrote a work of staggering comprehensiveness about war … .”

What is the best English translation?

By: josephfouche

josephfouche — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 04:31:35 +0000

It's curious how many general and specialist works on war there are and how systematically they are ignored. There are seven military classics of China besides the Sun Tzu, some of which contain valuable information. The Indian strategist Kautilya wrote a work of staggering comprehensiveness about war two thousand years ago. He even invented what 5GW is supposed to be without all of the useless accumulation of intellectual bric-a-brac. Even CvC is relegated to an afterthought in some circles. As you say, it would be nice if all these works were laid out in a comprehensive library for the easy use of the interested reader. I thought about extracting such a collection from my own library but the time involved is enormous.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 15:48:57 +0000

Since I am being so hard on the dreamers of 5GW, I am going to have to suggest some alternative vocabulary. That’s only fair, and I will do so.

There are new and real problems coming into view amidst the swirling fog. If anything, the 5GW conversation got some thinking started. But, the 5, the G and W all seem to fit poorly. So we will re-label the bins, and re-examine the contents, and see if that helps.

By: Nathaniel T. Lauterbach

Nathaniel T. Lauterbach — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:34:21 +0000

“Thus it has come about that our theoretical and critical literature, instead of giving plain, straightforward arguments in which the author at least always knows what he is saying and the reader what he is reading, is crammed with jargon, ending at obscure crossroads where the author loses his readers. Sometimes these books are even worse: they are just hollow shells. The author himself no longer knows just what he is thinking and soothes himself with obscure ideas which would not satisfy him if express in plain speech. ”

I too thought of releasing a grand broadside against the concept of 5GW at this point, but decided against it. We’re discussing CvC here, not overly-dialectical concepts laced with enormous amounts of intellectual certainty and hubris.

One of the virtues of the military mind is that it is, ideally, very practical. This is why most military practitioners will buy into various 4GW concepts, but refuse to buy into the whole theory of 4GW. There is nothing of value to practitioners in the realm of 5GW–whatever that is. Until that concept gets some coherence, loses the pretension, and becomes even marginally practical, most actual military men will never buy into it. It is contrary to our nature to buy into half-baked, pretentious, & impractical concepts.

Clausewitz would never have bought into such a concept. Nor do I.

By: zenpundit

zenpundit — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:09:15 +0000

Another great post Lex. You handled science, moral forces and history well. I may junk my original idea for a Book II post and use you as a foil.

5GW, once a kind of logical follow up to an avant-garde school of military thought, is now vastly expanded to an incoherent F***king mess. Not to brag but I’m one of the earliest people to write about it, definitely in the first five and I have no idea what 5GW is supposed to be or mean anymore other than as a handy “magic cloud” for whatever is not conventional state vs. state warfare. Which tells us nothing.