On War
Posted: Mon Nov 27, 2017 5:22 pm
Revisiting Carl von Clausewitz recently. I was struck by the clarity of Anatol Rapoport’s 1968 introduction to On War, where he outlines the three, philosophical approaches: the political, the eschatological and the cataclysmic. I took the liberty of summarizing his introduction from various online sources below:
Clausewitz was arguably the most important proponent of the political philosophy of war, which famously defined warfare as ‘an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will’ This philosophy conceived of war as being rational, national and instrumental. By this Clausewitz meant that the decision to employ the military instrument by waging war ought to be made on the basis of a rational calculation taken by the political authority concerned in order to achieve some specified goal. In Clausewitz’s schema political authority resided in sovereign states. During his lifetime (1780–1831), war was widely viewed as a legitimate instrument of state policy albeit one that should be used only with a clear purpose in mind. In practice, victory in such rational, national and instrumental wars usually went to those who were most accomplished in the arts of attrition and maneuver.
In contrast to this view, the eschatological philosophy revolves around ‘the idea that history, or at least some portion of history, will culminate in a “final” war leading to the unfolding of some grand design – divine, natural, or human.’ Rapoport suggested that this philosophy comes in two variants: messianic and global. In the messianic variant the agency destined to carry out the ‘grand design’ is presumed to exist already. Its ‘mission’ was likely to involve ‘imposing a just peace on the world’, thus ‘eliminating war from future history’. Expressions of such a philosophy have included the crusaders’ attempts to unite the known world under a single faith in the Middle Ages, the Nazi doctrine of the Master Race, al-Qaida’s vision of a global caliphate, or America’s final eradication of the “evil of “terrorism” and spreading “freedom and democracy.” “This is a war between good and evil. And we have made it clear to the world that we will stand strong on the side of good, and we expect other nations to join us. This is not a war between our world and their world. It is a war to save the world…. There is no neutral ground – no neutral ground – in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.” (– G. W. Bush 2002, 2004)
In the global variant, the ‘grand design’ is presumed to arise from the chaos of the ‘final war’. In Christian eschatology, for example, this would involve forces which will rally around Christ in the Second Coming. Alternatively, in communist eschatology the struggle for power was waged between classes rather than between states or religions. From this perspective the emergence of the ‘world proletariat’ was required to convert imperialist war into class war and, after defeating the bourgeoisie, to establish a world order in which wars will no longer occur.
Finally, the cataclysmic philosophy conceived of war ‘as a catastrophe that befalls some portion of humanity or the entire human race.’ Tolstoy is one proponent of this view. In this view, war could be seen as a scourge of God or as an unfortunate by-product of the anarchic ‘international system’. This philosophy also comes in two variants: ethnocentric and global. In the ethnocentric version, war is understood as something that is likely to befall us; specifically war is something that others threaten to do to us. The coming war is not seen as beneficial to us; all that can be done is to forestall the impending disaster or alleviate its worst effects. For example, this is seen in the view in Judaism of war as a punishment from God on the Israelites in certain books of the Tenakh. These books sees war as an ineluctable act of God, in the same way Tolstoy especially emphasizes war as something that befalls man and is in no way under the influence of man's "free will", but is instead the result of irresistible global forces. In the global variant, war is a cataclysm that affects humanity as a whole and not just this or that group of humans. No one is held responsible and no one will benefit from it. As a result, this philosophy focuses attention on the prevention of war; ‘on uncovering the causes of war and on inventing institutionalized methods of conflict resolution.
In the contemporary wars in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, which philosophy are we and the other players employing? Has the philosophy chosen by various actors been shown to be applicable and useful or incoherent to political realities and related state interests in the Clausewitz sense and therefore fruitless? Which, if any, have succeeded and which, if any, have been shown to fail? Alternatively, which should be adopted and how should they be employed?
(I understand this is a big topic. I request that whatever, if any, discussion ensues on this be philosophically and historically disciplined to allow for clear discernment and not the usual partisan stuff that stirs up smoke, dust, and distractions around it.. Thanks. )
Clausewitz was arguably the most important proponent of the political philosophy of war, which famously defined warfare as ‘an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will’ This philosophy conceived of war as being rational, national and instrumental. By this Clausewitz meant that the decision to employ the military instrument by waging war ought to be made on the basis of a rational calculation taken by the political authority concerned in order to achieve some specified goal. In Clausewitz’s schema political authority resided in sovereign states. During his lifetime (1780–1831), war was widely viewed as a legitimate instrument of state policy albeit one that should be used only with a clear purpose in mind. In practice, victory in such rational, national and instrumental wars usually went to those who were most accomplished in the arts of attrition and maneuver.
In contrast to this view, the eschatological philosophy revolves around ‘the idea that history, or at least some portion of history, will culminate in a “final” war leading to the unfolding of some grand design – divine, natural, or human.’ Rapoport suggested that this philosophy comes in two variants: messianic and global. In the messianic variant the agency destined to carry out the ‘grand design’ is presumed to exist already. Its ‘mission’ was likely to involve ‘imposing a just peace on the world’, thus ‘eliminating war from future history’. Expressions of such a philosophy have included the crusaders’ attempts to unite the known world under a single faith in the Middle Ages, the Nazi doctrine of the Master Race, al-Qaida’s vision of a global caliphate, or America’s final eradication of the “evil of “terrorism” and spreading “freedom and democracy.” “This is a war between good and evil. And we have made it clear to the world that we will stand strong on the side of good, and we expect other nations to join us. This is not a war between our world and their world. It is a war to save the world…. There is no neutral ground – no neutral ground – in the fight between civilization and terror, because there is no neutral ground between good and evil, freedom and slavery, and life and death.” (– G. W. Bush 2002, 2004)
In the global variant, the ‘grand design’ is presumed to arise from the chaos of the ‘final war’. In Christian eschatology, for example, this would involve forces which will rally around Christ in the Second Coming. Alternatively, in communist eschatology the struggle for power was waged between classes rather than between states or religions. From this perspective the emergence of the ‘world proletariat’ was required to convert imperialist war into class war and, after defeating the bourgeoisie, to establish a world order in which wars will no longer occur.
Finally, the cataclysmic philosophy conceived of war ‘as a catastrophe that befalls some portion of humanity or the entire human race.’ Tolstoy is one proponent of this view. In this view, war could be seen as a scourge of God or as an unfortunate by-product of the anarchic ‘international system’. This philosophy also comes in two variants: ethnocentric and global. In the ethnocentric version, war is understood as something that is likely to befall us; specifically war is something that others threaten to do to us. The coming war is not seen as beneficial to us; all that can be done is to forestall the impending disaster or alleviate its worst effects. For example, this is seen in the view in Judaism of war as a punishment from God on the Israelites in certain books of the Tenakh. These books sees war as an ineluctable act of God, in the same way Tolstoy especially emphasizes war as something that befalls man and is in no way under the influence of man's "free will", but is instead the result of irresistible global forces. In the global variant, war is a cataclysm that affects humanity as a whole and not just this or that group of humans. No one is held responsible and no one will benefit from it. As a result, this philosophy focuses attention on the prevention of war; ‘on uncovering the causes of war and on inventing institutionalized methods of conflict resolution.
In the contemporary wars in the Middle East, South Asia, and Africa, which philosophy are we and the other players employing? Has the philosophy chosen by various actors been shown to be applicable and useful or incoherent to political realities and related state interests in the Clausewitz sense and therefore fruitless? Which, if any, have succeeded and which, if any, have been shown to fail? Alternatively, which should be adopted and how should they be employed?
(I understand this is a big topic. I request that whatever, if any, discussion ensues on this be philosophically and historically disciplined to allow for clear discernment and not the usual partisan stuff that stirs up smoke, dust, and distractions around it.. Thanks. )