Clausewitz “On War” and His Continuous Relevance
In this piece, I make an attempt to answer two difficult questions. One on the relevance of Clausewitz in modern times and the second on the potential contradiction of his wonderous trinity.
- Is Clausewitz still relevant?
The short answer is Yes! (or at least, somewhat yes!)
Unlike most other books and writings on Warfare, Clausewitz presents an approach to warfare as a theoretical and stand-alone entity. His incomplete series “On War” discusses the theory of War itself. It discusses War and violence as a single entity alongside all the players that exist around it. Regardless of the time and season War takes place, his theories are presented so that they will remain valid and universally relevant. It is indeed a theory of War. On what basis, however, do we pose the relevance of his approaches in modern times?
Now would the principles posed by Clausewitz be correct in their current form today? Moreover, are his principles applicable everywhere? That is an entirely different conversation. One could argue that since the nature of War has changed in significant dimensions, specifically with the introduction of information technology to the space of warfare, technology, most of what Clausewitz identified as being integral to War are pretty much irrelevant — stating from the very first one which is friction. Others such as uncertainty, danger, fear, courage, chance and friction are pointless in cyberspace and the future direction of what is regarded as War. So, to sum up my answer, Yes, Clausewitz is still “somewhat” relevant in this space as his major work studies war as a theoretical entity. However, his relevance will heavily be argued when it comes to the practicality of his work in modern times.
2. Does Clausewitz’ ‘wondrous trinity’ contradict his own statement that ‘War is the continuation of politics by other means?
Clausewitz presents War as a wonderous trinity that consists of the people, the commander and his army, and the government. I do not believe he contradicts himself. In reality, these three entities form the bedrock and core center of politics in itself.
Politics refer to any form of activities that influence a government’s policies, actions, or directions or the ability to get and keep power within a government.
The argument could be made that the commander and his army have no choice or say in the matter; after all, the people who send them to War, at least in modern times, are not on the front lines themselves (except in very few cases like late president Idriss Déby of Chad). That is solely the job of the politicians in government. On the other hand, the government can only retain power and remain in power as long as they are popular among the people. From time immemorial, the people have always been raised to revolt against unpopular wars. An excellent example of this is easily seen with Russia’s February revolution and the fall of the Tsar’s regime in 1917. So no, although Clausewitz does not contradict himself in his entirety, politics usually involve the government, with the people as the force and backbone that keep them in power. Furthermore, suppose we accept that War is simply the process of bending the enemy to do our well, which is a factor of politics, then Clausewitz does not contradict himself.
Overall, Clausewitz was tough to read. I had to read the first chapter three times to get a grasp of what he was referring to. Clausewitz seemed to contradict himself every single step of the way. His writing style is complex, and I’ve hard to read multiple summaries and analyses to understand his many of his exact points.
