Clausewitz and Iraq Part I: An Introduction
I said I'd get to it, and I'm getting to it. But first some background.
I should mention, every Clausewitz comes from this edition of On War. But for now, I'm not going to be using any quotations, I'm going to offer an introduction to Clausewitz and why I'm writing this.
In my history class, titled "War and Society: 18th-20th Century Europe", for which I read Clausewitz, I discovered, while reading about France's wars against Austria in the Revolutionary period, that I could gain a new perspective on our war with Iraq by treating it like I was treating France's wars, like it already happened, and I'm just getting all the facts and details in real time. This view is evidenced most so in this post comparing Iraq to Napoleon's war in Spain.
Then of course, I started reading Clausewitz. For those who don't know who he is, Clausewitz was a Prussian strategist who posited the theory that war is an act of policy, and as such it is entirely subordinate to policy makers. It should be mentioned that Clausewitz's On War was very well read by the mid-to-late 19th century, and many military men would use it against the civilian policymakers, noting where Clausewitz seems to imply that the military should be left alone, while ignoring the parts where he mentions war as an extension of policy and politics.
A lot can be said on Clausewitz's work for its own sake, but I won't be doing that. The posts that I will be writing on this will pertain specifically in Iraq. They will come in three parts (not necessarily three posts, a part may take more than one post, I haven't worked out all the details yet).
Part one will deal with Clausewitz's view on how military should be run and how it relates to the course of events in the Iraq war.
Part two will involve the role of the government, and how the Bush Administration fulfilled this role.
Part three will be a summing up and note of what went wrong and why.
I hope that these will be enlightening for my readership. I think the number is at least 8, maybe even ten. And that's two digits right there!
I said I'd get to it, and I'm getting to it. But first some background.
I should mention, every Clausewitz comes from this edition of On War. But for now, I'm not going to be using any quotations, I'm going to offer an introduction to Clausewitz and why I'm writing this.
In my history class, titled "War and Society: 18th-20th Century Europe", for which I read Clausewitz, I discovered, while reading about France's wars against Austria in the Revolutionary period, that I could gain a new perspective on our war with Iraq by treating it like I was treating France's wars, like it already happened, and I'm just getting all the facts and details in real time. This view is evidenced most so in this post comparing Iraq to Napoleon's war in Spain.
Then of course, I started reading Clausewitz. For those who don't know who he is, Clausewitz was a Prussian strategist who posited the theory that war is an act of policy, and as such it is entirely subordinate to policy makers. It should be mentioned that Clausewitz's On War was very well read by the mid-to-late 19th century, and many military men would use it against the civilian policymakers, noting where Clausewitz seems to imply that the military should be left alone, while ignoring the parts where he mentions war as an extension of policy and politics.
A lot can be said on Clausewitz's work for its own sake, but I won't be doing that. The posts that I will be writing on this will pertain specifically in Iraq. They will come in three parts (not necessarily three posts, a part may take more than one post, I haven't worked out all the details yet).
Part one will deal with Clausewitz's view on how military should be run and how it relates to the course of events in the Iraq war.
Part two will involve the role of the government, and how the Bush Administration fulfilled this role.
Part three will be a summing up and note of what went wrong and why.
I hope that these will be enlightening for my readership. I think the number is at least 8, maybe even ten. And that's two digits right there!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home