The Relevance of Clausewitz’s Theory of War to Contemporary Conflict Resolution

Abstract

It is not what we have thought, but rather how we have thought it, that we consider to be our contribution to theory.Tiha von Ghyczy, Boiko von Oetinger, and Christopher Bassford 1Carl von Clausewitz has been studied extensively for 150 years by dedicated scholars and is acknowledged to be one of the few truly great writers on war. Many aspects of his ideas and concepts have received much attention in recent years and continue to remain relevant, and are often used in today's doctrines and for civil-military educational processes. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to analyze the most important theoretical aspects of and strategy expounded by Clausewitz, some of which are enduring contributions to contemporary thought and still relevant to today's strategists.Three crucial points will be used to support this contention. first point is a conventional reference to his thinking: one the one hand, war is an extension of policy; on the other, war is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.2 second point relates to his analysis of the nature of and trinity theory. final point concerns his understanding of the nature of strategy.To begin, one may pose a basic question: what are Clausewitz's most important contributions to the theory of insofar as they are relevant to strategists today? In other words, what can a nineteenth century Prussian general teach a twenty-first century executive or entrepreneur about the theory of war?Clausewitz applied a scientific, methodological approach to analyzing in all of its aspects. This article presents and examines his most important and enduring contributions to the theory of and strategy, and underlines their most important aspects. Firstly, particularly noteworthy is his famous conclusion that is merely the continuation of policy by other means.3 essence of this theory was Clausewitz's description of the vertical continuum of (policy and strategy tactics), which he presents in the strategic ends, ways, and means paradigm. According to this, Clausewitz explains that ...war in itself does not suspend political intercourse... War cannot be divorced from political life...4The excerpts above reveal how Clausewitz refers to the political objective of war. This observation accurately captures the key aspect of war: its subordination to politics. Clausewitz's teaching about the relationship between politics and can therefore be concluded with this summary: will have fulfilled its main task when it is used to analyze the constituent elements of war... Theory then becomes a guide to anyone who wants to learn about from books.5Clausewitz sees as completely subordinate to policy. In On War, he explains that The political object-the original motive for the war-will thus determine both the military objective to be reached and the amount of effort it requires.6 In his view, war is thus an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will.7 It seems fair to say that this definition remains relevant today, with the caveat that current conflicts include all kinds of asymmetric threats (terrorism, organized crime, drug cartels, and so on.) Clearly, this definition emphasizes the centrality of combat, which separates from conflict. To support previous points, Clausewitz describes as ...a clash between major interests, which is resolved by bloodshed - that is the only way in which it differs from other conflicts.8 This leads to a clear understanding of the distinction between and conflict, particularly in today's contemporary environment in which the threats are often asymmetric threats. However, what differentiates warfare today from the warfare conducted during Clausewitz's time should be kept in mind. A crucial difference lies in the non-kinetic aspect of contemporary warfare - namely, in information warfare. As a result of globalization and technological development that enables instant messaging over different information platforms, information campaigns have a vital role to play in winning wars by winning hearts and minds, as well as by discrediting the enemy (for example recently in Afghanistan between NATO and Taliban forces). …