Carl Von Clausewitz: Theory of War

Carl Von Clausewitz: Theory of War

Introduction

The (liberal) reduction in the aspect of rationality resulted in a time of revolutionary change to the new epoch of the war 1989/91, however, too far-reaching criticisms of Clausewitz's theory. She was no longer applied to new forms of violence or other act of autonomous logics, such as by warlords. Of particular importance was that Christopher Daase and Herfried Münkler productivity of Clausewitz's approach explicitly verified in the field on which he is generally regarded as obsolete: the War of the small (Daase) and the new forms of privatized violence (Münkler) . Daase managed to clean Clausewitz's writings on war and its small Bekenntnisdenkschrift of their normative and ballast for the analysis of the current "small wars" to make available. Münkler demonstrated that the application of Clausewitz's theory to today's privatized war and violence requires a fundamental shift in meaning of interpretation. In it is no longer the world-famous formula of war as a continuation of politics by other means in the foreground, but specifically the "strange trinity" of war, Clausewitz himself described as his own "consequences for theory" (Bassford). In her repeated Clausewitz on the one hand, the indirect formula (albeit in a slightly weaker form), at the same time he stressed that the primacy of politics is only one of three necessarily equal tendencies of the war. The other two are the "original violence of war," which he described as hatred and hostility "as a blind natural instinct" and the "game of probabilities and chance." As Clausewitz pointed out, this is his real idea of ??the war and his starting point of the whole theory.

Relevance of Clausewitz in Modern Strategy

The relevance of Clausewitz's theory for the analysis of current developments arises not only from the interpretation of the "wondrous trinity" as a general theory of war, but also from a fundamental re-politicization of war and violence in the world society. Sumida explained his interpretation that the primacy of politics in Clausewitz's theory is directly connected with the determination of the defense as a stronger form of war and criticized from this standpoint, the Bush administration. With reference to Clausewitz's definition of the relationship of purpose and objective Moran explained the political fallout from the breaking up of military strength and vulnerability in the Western industrialized countries. Contrary to popular interpretations underscored Echevarria, that globalization and the revolution in information technologies have (in detail Lonsdale) the importance of political action even accelerated and became head of there from that the war on terror primarily is the hegemony of political ideas. From the same general findings based Herberg-Rothe drew the conclusion that the relationship between politics and war, as described by Clausewitz, but still retains validity. The substantive definition of politics in democratic societies, however, is a completely different than it is implicitly assumed by Clausewitz. From this he developed the concept of limitations on war and violence in the world society as a precondition to the establishment of democratic societies ...