“On War” Carl von Clausewitz Book 8. War Plans Book 6. Defense IR I31012 Sohee Shim

Questions What does Clausewitz believe to be the proper roles of civilian leaders in formulating and executing national strategy? What is the proper relationship between civilian and military leadership? Does this relationship change once war is declared? In what ways, does or should military instrument affect the aims of policy?

1-A. Introduction War Plans Definition Political Purpose: What he intends to achieve by that war Operational Objective: How he intends to conduct it Premises The natural aim of military operations is the enemy’s overthrow. Theoretical concept is not fulfilled in practice. - Incoherent characteristic of human - The act of civilian leaders

Different Scale of the Military Objective 1-B. Introduction Different Scale of the Military Objective The scale of political demands The conditions of the belligerents The governments’ strength of will, their character and abilities Effort to be Made Examine our own political aim and that of the enemy. Gauge the strength and situation of the opposing state. Gauge the character and abilities of its government and people. Evaluate the political sympathies of other states and war effect. The degree of force that must be used against the enemy depends on the scale of political demands on either side. These demands, so far as they are known, would show what efforts each must make; but they seldom are fully known – which may be one reason why both sides do not exert themselves to the same degree. Nor are the situation and conditions of the belligerents alike. This can be a second factor. Just as disparate are the governments’ strength of will, their character and abilities. To discover how much of our resources must be mobilized for war, We ----

2-A. The Characteristics of War The Absolute War The nature of the subject. War is indivisible. (Individual victories are valuable only in their relation to the whole.) Clear idea of the goal. All action must be based on the former. The Real War The actual history. War is flexible. (minor advantages without onerous condition.) Goal is developing. Only modification justified by circumstances. War derives its validity from the nature of the subject. War must be conceived of as a single whole. The general must already have a clear idea of the goal with his first move. War derives its validity from its actual history. (small advantage could be gained without an onerous condition) People will find it legitimate to pursue minor advantages for their own sake and leave the future to itself.

2-B. The Military Object for Both War The Absolute War The Defeat of the Enemy Destruction of his army. Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of administration but also that of social, professional, and political activity. Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he. The Real War Continued: Limited Aims Seizing a small or larger piece of enemy territory. Waiting until things take a better turn (defensive war). The aim of war should be what its very concept implies – to defeat the enemy. But what exactly does “defeat” signify? The conquest of the whole of the enemy’s territory is not always necessary. What the theorist has to say here is this: one must keep the dominant characteristics of both belligerents in mind. Based on general experience, the acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are the following. The conditions for defeating an enemy presuppose great physical or moral superiority or else an extremely enterprising spirit, an inclination for serious risks. When neither of these is present, the object of military activity can only be one of two kinds: seizing a small or larger piece of enemy territory, or holding one’s own until things take a better turn. (defensive war)

Question and Answer (1) What does Clausewitz believe to be the proper roles of civilian leaders in formulating and executing national strategy? Intellect and strength of character - The military and political affairs of France were never in worse hands than when the brothers Belle-Isle and the Duc de Choiseul were responsible - good soldiers though they all were.

Question and Answer (2) What is the proper relationship between civilian and military leadership? War is an instrument of policy. - War does not suspend political intercourse or change it into different thing. - Political lines continue throughout the war into the subsequent peace. The military should be subordinate to the politics. - It is highly dangerous to let any soldier but the commander-in-chief exert an influence in cabinet. The example of France between 1793 and 1795, when Carnot ran the war from Paris, is entirely inapplicable, for terror can be used as a weapon only by a revolutionary government.

Question and Answer (3) Does this relationship change once war is declared? No. War is only a branch of political activity; no sense autonomous - The only source of war is politics – the intercourse of governments and peoples. But it is apt to be assumed that war suspends that intercourse and replaces it by a wholly different condition, ruled by no law but its own. Purely military opinion is unacceptable and can be damaging. - No major proposal required for war can be worked out in ignorance of political factors. If the policy is right, any intentional effect it has on the conduct of the war can only be to the good. If it has the opposite effect the policy itself is wrong.

Question and Answer (4) In what ways, does or should military instrument affect the aims of policy? The tool of policy - War has undergone significant changes in character and methods, Changes have brought it closer to its absolute form. However, these changes derived from the harness of policy. The indissoluble connection between war and politics. - The transformation of the art of war resulted from the transformation of politics. The two could be disassociated from each other, these changes are a strong proof of their indissoluble connection. The conduct of war is policy itself.

Conclusion War is not some abstract idealized war. - War is not absolute form or black and white. Civilian leadership should be above military leadership. - War is not just a brute force but a calculated goal. War is continuation of policy by other means. - War is an instrument of politics.