All you ever wanted to know about Clausewitz, and more.....

[image taken from the self-styled Clausewitz homepage]

 

 You should be familiar with and be able to explain the following key terms and concepts:

Polarity

Interaction

The Relationship of Policy and War

Absolute War

Escalating Forces

Conditions for

De-escalating forces (i.e. what leads to war in reality)

Paradoxical Trinity

Hsing (from Sun Tzu)

BONUS: (these concepts are anticipated in Book I, chp I but are fully developed elsewhere - you will see them again in section VI of the course)

Friction

Fog of War

 
1.            Clausewitz states, "War is nothing but a duel on a larger scale," a analogy which Mueller accepts in developing an argument about the prospects for abolishing war. Later Clausewitz claims "in the whole range of human activities, war most closely resembles a game of cards." Why do you think Clausewitz chose these two analogies? How might these analogies be imperfect and how might this affect the argument put forth by Mueller? What sort of rules would a hypothetical dueling match have to have in order to approximate the conditions and character of absolute war, and how might these conditions be modified to approximate war in reality?
 
 

2.             Fight a hypothetical war using Clausewitz's concept of the paradoxical trinity. Be able to give examples of how each of the three nodes (government/rational, army/creativity, and people/passion) could move your hypothetical scenario closer to and further away from absolute war. Be able to give examples of how each of the nodes might support or limit one another - especially how the people and army might limit the policy set forth by the government.
 
 

3.            What is the relationship between policy and war and the government and the army? Does this relationship change once war is declared? In what ways (if at all), does or should the military instrument affect the aims of policy?
 
 

4.            What are the differences (if any) between Clausewitz's and Sun Tzu's treatment of war? Which work do you feel is more relevant to your interests, and/or better captures the nature of war today? Why? How does each author treat certainty and chance in war? Do you think their strategic advice is compatible? Are they talking about warfare at the same level?