Comments on: Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Book III: Calculation

By: seydlitz89

seydlitz89 — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:40:55 +0000

“The movement itself forecloses options to both sides that had previously existed immediately before, resources, distance and time imposing constraints on a commander’s freedom of action. The decision tree is re-written. Sufficient velocity movement in strategic zones of operation are themselves enough to create either paralyzing uncertainty or impetuous decision in an adversary.”

Nice.

By: josephfouche

josephfouche — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 23:04:47 +0000

I always found it interesting that Buonaparte was born on an island in a port by the sea and yet never seemed to get a feel for how to conduct warfare on the sea and, as you point out, the vastness of the steppes. One major reason why he ended up dying on an island as well while imprisoned by an island nation of shopkeepers.

By: zenpundit

zenpundit — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 18:44:28 +0000

“I may not set the building on fire and kill all the participants. Or in both cases, I could do those things, but I would no longer be duelling or playing cards”

Very astute observation. operate sufficiently outside the rules and the thing you are doing s no longer what it was.

Much of the Western political elite have difficulty with this in terms of terrorism, having woven elaborate rules in regards to the use of military force since WWII(some so ridiculously self-defeating, even liberal Democratic presidents like LBJ and Jimmy Carter refused to sign on)that no real opponent that Western armies would ever face, recognize or adhere to. Our opponents do not follow the most basic, centuries old, laws of war much less the cocked up, journal article, fantasies of international law professors whose closest brush with conflict is a sharp remark in the faculty senate.

The cognitive divide is deep and the remotely located fools on our side have far too much power over the men in uniform who have to make difficult decisions under fire.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 17:30:52 +0000

Zen, this is good. A battle that is not fought is like a positional move in chess that does not take a piece. The whole board is changed, and the scope of future moves is changed.

Of course, this analogy holds up when both sides understand that they are playing chess. Clausewitz uses analogies like (1) a duel, (2) a wrestling match, (3) a game of cards. Each of these has rules. In a duel, I may not bring a grenade and kill my opponents and his seconds by ambush as they get out of their carriage. In a game of cards, I may not set the building on fire and kill all the participants. Or in both cases, I could do those things, but I would no longer be duelling or playing cards.

When two different triads of leaders-fighters-supporters, engage in conflict across a linguistic and cultural divide they will necessarily have few commonly understood rules.

Getting to a political resolution under these circumstances is extremely difficult.

In particular, “moves” that are “within the game” but do not have obvious effects (dead people, blown up stuff) are particularly open to misinterpretation.

The side that best understands the other is playing chess with the blindfold off.