Clausewitz, On War: Book 1-Proposition: War is fractal

Snip from Cheryl Rofer, commenting:

That is, do the same conditions apply to war overall, to engagements, battles and on down?

In my mind, when I look at the essence of conditions, I see fractal qualities. If I were king, benevolent of course, I would have my visionary thinkers and information disseminators begin their work from this premise: War is an act of force, an instrument of policy. Complete comprehension of war is to be found in a trilateral communication–a communal sharing of thoughts and feelings, policy and action– of the people, the government, and the military.

Propostion: War is fractal.

For me, as benevolent king, thinking as such allows for policy/action interventions, appropriate to the dynamics of extremes.

Postscript: Before I made myself benevolent king, I was captain of a ship. It sank, without a trace. But that’s another story, less I digress…

Clausewitz Roundtable, On War: Week of January 11, 2009

This link– CLICK HERE –opens a Grazr Window. It loads an OPML file, which, in this instance, is a structured container providing a list of links–this week’s posts categorized Clausewitz Roundtable.

It’s also a sidebar navigation tool. How so? Open the link. Bookmark it, then edit its properties to open in sidebar. Easy?

You can GO HERE to get embed code. I put it in my WordPress 2.7 blog, like this.

If you have questions, suggestions, comments about this tool, please Leave a Reply.

Clausewitz, On War, Introductory Matter: “Hello World!”

It is February, 2003. There has been a fire in a Rhode Island nightclub, taking a terrible toll on life. The event moves me to check in with the only person I know in Rhode Island, Tom Barnett.

I send a brief email, a casual How are you doing? The reply was quick, something like, “Fine, Just wrote piece for Esquire magazine. Tell me what you think.”

I open the attached Word doc. It begins:

LET ME TELL YOU why military engagement with Saddam Hussein’s regime in Baghdad is not only necessary and inevitable, but good.
When the United States finally goes to war again in the Persian Gulf, it will not constitute a settling of old scores, or just an enforced disarmament of illegal weapons, or a distraction in the war on terror. Our next war in the Gulf will mark a historical tipping point—the moment when Washington takes real ownership of strategic security in the age of globalization.
That is why the public debate about this war has been so important: It forces Americans to come to terms with I believe is the new security paradigm that shapes this age, namely, Disconnectedness defines danger. Saddam Hussein’s outlaw regime is dangerously disconnected from the globalizing world, from its rule sets, its norms, and all the ties that bind countries together in mutually assured dependence.

A historical tipping point… government takes real ownership of strategic security… why the public debate is so important… the new security paradigm, Disconnectedness defines danger. Did he just say war is not only necessary and inevitable, but good? I read on…

Read more