War, Clausewitz, and the Trinity
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Warwick institutional repository: http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of PhD at the University of Warwick http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/2048 This thesis is made available online and is protected by original copyright. Please scroll down to view the document itself. Please refer to the repository record for this item for information to help you to cite it. Our policy information is available from the repository home page. War, Clausewitz, and the Trinity Thomas Waldman Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD Department of Politics and International Studies University of Warwick June 2009 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 8 2. Theoretical Foundations 48 3. Context and Circumstance 98 4. Policy: War as an Instrument 150 5. Chance: The Realm of Uncertainty 210 6. Passion: The Blind Natural Force 275 7. Interactions: The Trinity as a Unity 337 8. Conclusion and Reflections 365 APPENDIX I - Alternative Translations of the Trinity 382 APPENDIX II - Military Historical Overview 385 Bibliography 389 For my Dad Frederick Waldman 1922-1996 Acknowledgements Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the kind help, support, and patience of all my family, friends, and colleagues. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who has, in one way or another, supported me throughout this time. If I have not mentioned you below, you know who you are! In particular I would like to thank: Janie, Jack, and Dan the Man; Anne, Phil, and Williamus; Ruth and Jessica Townend, Claire Taylor, Cameron Christie, Jessie Scott, Nick Turner, Ben Collard, Ben McGregor, James Buffoni, Nick Corney, Sam Fletcher, John Roberts, and Tom Fisher…and not to forget Pep, RIP. A huge debt of gratitude is owed to Mr Jackson. Your inspirational, engaging, and informed teaching first sparked my interest in history, war, and international politics. I hope you approve of the present ‘essay’! Thanks to all my fellow ‘PhDers’, but two friends deserve special mention: Ben Richardson and Andy Mumford. I am extremely grateful to my ‘technical advisor’, Steve Clarke – I can’t begin to imagine how much time you saved me with your knowledge of macros, styles, and master-documents! Paul and Jo Snell, I have benefited immensely from your ever-constructive criticisms, comments, and sage advice over the years. Duncan Kelly, thank you for your sagacious guidance and kind support. Kevin Murphy, I am immensely grateful for your generous hospitality during my time at Penn State University. Andy Snell, thank you so much for your stoic toleration of my endless concerns and worries, which I hope did not mar too many treks in the Lakes and elsewhere. You, Dave, and Matt – as surrogate brothers – have persisted nobly in ensuring I retained a healthy sense of ‘perspective’! Acknowledgements I have been so lucky to have such a wonderful supervisor in Professor Caroline Kennedy-Pipe. Without your encouragement and belief in me, I doubt whether I would have had the courage to undertake this thesis. Not only have you been a superb mentor, but also a great friend and true inspiration. In your approach to supervision, I cannot help but be reminded of Clausewitz’s observation that ‘ a wise teacher guides and stimulates a young man’s intellectual development, but is careful not to lead him by the hand for the rest of his life.’ My brother Matt – I can’t thank you enough for all your encouragement and wise direction. Your two years work with Oxfam in Afghanistan has contributed inestimably to the promotion of sensible policies towards that poor country. I couldn’t have bigger footsteps to fill, so thanks for the ‘piggy-backs’ you’ve given me from time to time! Finally, Mum – who has had to endure more discussions about war than any parent should ever have to – I always admire your courage, generosity, and joie de vivre . Without your unstinting love and support (both moral and financial I admit!) I simply would never have completed this thesis. I hope Dad would be proud. Declaration Declaration I hereby declare that this thesis has not already been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not currently submitted in candidature for any other degree. It is the result of my own independent investigation, and all authorities and sources which have been consulted are acknowledged in the Bibliography. Signed ……………………… Thomas Waldman Date ……………… Abstract Abstract Today, the ideas of Carl von Clausewitz are employed almost ubiquitously in strategic studies, military history, and defence literature, sometimes at length, at others only in passing. Certain of his central insights have suffered distorting representations in recent years. This study is an attempt to analyse Clausewitz’s central theoretical device for understanding war – the ‘remarkable trinity’ of politics, chance, and passion. It aims to present a more accurate conception and one which is truer to Clausewitz’s intentions. It seeks to achieve this through an in-depth analysis and reinterpretation of the text of On War and Clausewitz’s other writings, conducted through the prism of the trinity and in the light of contemporary research on war. It draws on and synthesises many excellent existing studies, but argues that there is room for further clarification. It presents fresh perspectives into certain aspects of Clausewitz’s thought and emphasises elements of his theory that have been neglected. The interpretation is founded on three central approaches which place Clausewitz in historical context, considers critiques of his ideas, and recognises that the trinity cannot be understood in isolation, but rests upon ideas found in Clausewitz’s wider work. The trinity is a uniquely powerful framework for understanding the phenomenon of war. It cannot hope to answer all the strategic problems we face today – that was simply not what Clausewitz intended – but rather constitutes a mental guide for anyone interested in the subject, from commanders to university students. It focuses attention on the central underlying forces of war in their endlessly complex interaction. Once allowances are made for abstruse terminology and irregularities given the unfinished nature of On War , it is hoped that this thesis will underscore the timelessness of the trinity. Introduction CHAPTER ONE Introduction Writing in the early nineteenth century, Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831), a Prussian general, produced what is perhaps the most famous book on the nature and theory of war. Indeed, Bernard Brodie wrote that his masterpiece On War , ‘is not simply the greatest but the only true great book on war.’ 1 Harry Summers wrote that in ‘military science…On War is still the seminal work.’ 2 Christopher Coker describes Clausewitz as ‘the greatest phenomenologist of war.’ 3 His book is ‘often mentioned, occasionally quoted, but little read.’ 4 We might also add to that list, frequently misunderstood: a fact that has engendered ‘misinterpretations of enormous consequence.’ 5 Studies employing or drawing upon purportedly Clausewitzian insights, that demonstrate little evidence of deep familiarity with the text, continue to proliferate. Clausewitz is mentioned almost ubiquitously in strategic studies and military historical literature and often in an extremely instrumental fashion. His ideas are utilised in a very selective and cursory manner, so that he appears everywhere but often only in passing. The real Clausewitz is often lost in a mass of fleeting references, most of which are misleading or do not fully convey the complexity of his arguments. Many modern popular works on war deploy supposedly Clausewitzian ideas which are almost unrecognisable to anyone with a moderate acquaintance with his work, or which present such crude, often derivative, representations as to appear almost satirical. Most striking is the disproportion between the towering status of his name and how little he appears to have been read in any great depth. As is often the fate of great works, they are scavenged for ideas to lend gravitas to spuriously related arguments. 1 Bernard Brodie, ‘The Continuing Relevance of On War ’, in Carl von Clausewitz, On War , trans. and ed. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (New York: Everyman’s Library, 1993), p. 58. 2 Harry Summers, On Strategy: The Vietnam War in Context (Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific, 2003), p. 4. 3 Christopher Coker, Waging War Without Warriors? The Changing Culture of Military Conflict (London: Lynne Rienner, 2002), p. 54. 4 Christopher Bellamy, Knights in White Armour: The New Art of War and Peace (London: Pimlico, 1998), p. 25. This is a quote which itself is often mentioned, but one suspects, rarely acted upon. 5 Beatrice Heuser, Reading Clausewitz (London: Pimlico, 2002), p. x. 8 Introduction It has been written that, in order to avoid such endless misunderstanding, On War ‘has to be studied repeatedly, seriously, and in depth.’ 6 The irony that this was written by one of Clausewitz’s most mistaken interpreters should not detract from the wisdom of the injunction. 7 Most crucially, Clausewitz must be studied in context; as Peter Paret notes: ‘Every theory that outlasts its creator tends to be reinterpreted unhistorically…Clausewitz’s writings have suffered the attendant distortions more than most.’ 8 Also, Azar Gat has stressed that the ‘obscurity of Clausewitz’s text has continually left room for conflicting and unhistorical interpretations.’ 9 Of course, secondary interpretations are inevitably subjective, however this does not prevent us from recognising where some are clearly superior to others. The prominent sources of forgivable misinterpretations are well-known: the unfinished text, the inherent difficulty of some of the ideas, the use of outdated concepts, and problems associated with translation. The only means of overcoming these potential interpretative pitfalls is through a detailed reading of On War and Clausewitz’s wider work, attempting to understanding the man himself, and situating his ideas in the time they were written, as well as drawing upon a range of secondary analyses, which are themselves based on rigorous research.