What is War?

2014-10-31T15:03:49-04:00

This is a theoretical discussion. Numerous military theorists from Sun Tzu, to Clausewitz (who is horribly misquoted more often than any other), to Colin Gray and Andrew J. Bacevich, Jr. have wrestled with this concept. I have noted in my research that there seems an overwhelming human desire to "impose rules" on war and disgust with those who choose to fight war outside those established "norms."

My question then to you all is what is your own personal definition and or hypothesis concerning war and how would you develop a theory from that? Can you state which other military and political theorists influenced your thought process, if any?

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 8:09 PM

2014-10-31T20:09:18-04:00

Ma'am, here's a definition of war from the dictionary:

"a state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state"

I think of the wars we've been involved in. This definition certainly applies to our Revolutionary War, our Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, and our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

President Bush declared a "global war on terrorism (GWOT)," which also fits the definition.

And the latest "war" against ISIS/ISIL fits as well.

It seems to me that anytime we confront an adversary who wants to do our country or our way of life harm, and we decide to fight back, that's a war.

Heck, there's even a war on drugs, and that fits my definition of war as well. The drug suppliers, dealers, etc., want to do us harm, so fighting back against them could be defined as a war.

I don't have any deep military thinkers to quote, just common sense, coupled with a sense of survival for our country and our culture.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Oct 31 at 2014 8:18 PM

2014-10-31T20:18:35-04:00

Simply put war is one of two things, in the modern sense:

1: Diplomacy through extreme measures
2: Failed diplomacy

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 31 at 2014 11:14 PM

2014-10-31T23:14:16-04:00

I view war as a sponsored society or state that has determined it necessary to execute a change in behavior (actions/intentions/or influence) within another group. I believe war to encompass all powers of influence Diplomatic Informational Military Economic (DIME) and run full range of spectrum from small strategic actions to long actions of attrition. The reason to put rules on war is to minimize the time and resources required to return to a stabilized norm (needless loss of life/resources/infrastructure). With all that said it is about changing the behavior of another be it direct attacks to keep countries out of countries (ISIS does not want Western influence for their people) or to stop an action that a country takes (human atrocities/drug smuggling). Like the debates that we have with others but on a grander scale.

Response by LTC Michael W. made Nov 1 at 2014 5:02 AM

2014-11-01T05:02:20-04:00

Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln (Clausewitz, 1832) (War is a mere continuation of policy by other means). This is Clausewitz’s use of sterilized dialectic analysis to characterize a condition of war as an activity distinct from a condition of peace. His characterization is useful when misinterpretation of the condition occurs, such as war frequently described as a hate competition, or an excuse to commit a crime, etcetera, when supported at the nation-state level.

There is a play between bounding war as an ephemeral discrete calculus, versus war as a grand continuum bounded only by divine fiat. My thoughts are that the condition of war is continual with the ability to experience foretastes of peace even during periods of formalized war, but nevertheless continual war with punctuations eventually leading to that promise of divine fiat. Mankind’s “war to end all wars” is unreliable and quite different from the given promise to end all wars.

The moral aspect of the condition of war is removed by a strict adherence to dialectics. War is an undesirable condition because it is the indirect result of the fallen nature of mankind. A good example of this is the American civil war, caused by the moral issue of slavery, but the first open hostilities of combatants manifesting itself from the economics. The unjust war lays bare the human soul for what it really is. The moral basis of war such as that described in Tranquilitas Ordinis (Weigel, 1987) provides a compelling series of arguments describing various means of keeping the peace via the pre-emption or avoidance of war as an overall theme.

War is not only a human condition. Tranquilitas Ordinis attempts to explain the general condition of war in the moral sense. When considering what is nothing less than a supernatural war between good and evil, Tranquilitas Ordinis challenges the rash inclination to formally declare war through a given political machinery. Saint Augustine’s sledgehammer-like logic under his exposition of a just war theory in De Civitate Dei envisions a fulfilling city of God, and simultaneously, a morally decaying city of Man. Saint Augustine provides criteria and a valid explanation for wartime as a continuum, supported by his personification of the good and evil society found in the world, as its history unfolds.

To its credit, Tranquilitas Ordinis does not rule out formal declarations of war, but reorders the priorities involved in arriving at the declaration of war. Tranquilitas Ordinis proposes that the vigilance needed to keep the peace involves maintaining or improving order to include a minimal use of force in a diminishing good-will scenario; something similar to using effects based operations or a re-prioritization of the Diplomatic, Information, Military Economic (DIME) power categories as instruments for keeping the peace. The analogy here is akin to spanking a misbehaving child to prevent the continuance of harm, a building up of the character, or the use of forceful means such as preventing a child from walking into rush hour traffic and causing self-injury out of youthful ignorance. To be effective, the assumption that Tranquilitas Ordinis builds upon requires a proper moral understanding of life in the first place.

Clausewitz was not oblivious to the moral underpinnings of war. His frequent uses of concepts such as an opponent’s center of gravity consisting of the economic and moral puzzle pieces that generate belligerent power are an identifiable aspect to his writing. The center of gravity defined as distinct constituent elements gives the impression that the adversary’s power is identifiable in a target set requiring different techniques for each target type within its overall interconnected center of gravity. Clausewitz’s approach would prove useful over time to improve strategizing and attacking a center of gravity’s constituent elements, particularly with its eye to the constraint of employing scarce resources that achieve the definable end-state, that is to say, a realized enforcement of policy.

To put all this initial reflection together, Clausewitz’s calculus for wartime activity is still the basic direction taken by most professionals upon a formal declaration of war because it seeks to leverage and focus applications of power in an efficient manner. An improvement upon Clausewitz’s contribution includes higher resolution and linkages between the strategic, operational, and tactical domains as well as an increased consideration and clarity to the moral question involved. The dialectic of war and peace as total commitments of a society are confounded by significantly divided democracies that attempt to formally prosecute their external conflicts. The effect of a society's moral ignorance is only more frequent, more costly, and more complex forms of war.

1. Clausewitz, C., Clausewitz, M. (1832) Vom Krieg, Berlin: Dümmlers Verlag.
2. Weigel, G.(1987), Tranquilitas Ordinis, Oxford University Press.
3. Augustine, A. (426), De Civitate Dei.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 1 at 2014 2:05 PM

2014-11-01T14:05:44-04:00

The trick to reading Clausewitz is to understand that he wrote in the manner of argument of the day - Hegalian dialect

He stated a thesis, then argues the anti-thesis (the opposite point of view), then combines the two into something new (synthesis)

Thus he can be misquoted because the thesis and anti-thesis are not what he was truly reasoning yet generally you find where folks pick and choose out of the two to argue their points.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Nov 1 at 2014 2:18 PM

2014-11-01T14:18:47-04:00

a racket.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Nov 1 at 2014 4:32 PM

2014-11-01T16:32:28-04:00

IMHO. War is a state of mind and political posture that is taken by a sovereign entity (person, group, culture, society, country, etc.) when that entity, based on its definition of rationality, established morals, code of laws and political infrastructure, feels that it has exhausted all less than violent, civilized (ethical and unethical) efforts to influence its will and desire over another entity. War becomes the forceful, most likely violent attempt of a sovereign entity to establish its will and desire over and conquer the unwilling entity though actions that push to the extreme and/or violate the sovereign entity's rationality, established morals and code of laws.

Response by SFC James Schroeder made Nov 2 at 2014 2:53 AM

2014-11-02T02:53:04-05:00

Ma'am,

While I tend to agree with Clausewitz's assessment regarding war being a continuation of policy by other means, I think he both goes too far and not far enough in his assessment. He goes too far in that he stays too general in his statement on policy; he does not go far enough in that he limited his assessment to armed conflict.

My hypothesis is that war is specifically the continuation of any policy involving the establishment of control of a group outside the normal sphere of influence of a given nation-state by other means. That control does not necessarily require physical violence between the aggressor and the target, but such physical violence between target and aggressor is a usual end result of such conflict. Specifically on the less violent side, one can conceivably foment unrest within the target group or country without actually engaging personnel from the aggressor nation-state. Modern war could conceivably rage in cyberspace long before a single shot is fired; indeed, should one (or more) side(s) fail to sufficiently secure their infrastructure, such a conflict may do considerable economic and even physical damage without attribution to the aggressor and with far fewer national (or organizational) resources required than full spectrum warfare would require.

Regardless, the differentiation between war and skirmish lies primarily in the concerted attempt by one side to gain control over the actions of the other. This is why I have never seen much use in the "War on Drugs", the "War on Poverty", or the "War on Terrorism" - war, using the full weight of a nation-state's capacity to force compliance of the opposing force, against an abuse problem, an economic status, and a tactic respectively has little to do with an identified target group or nation-state. They are, by their own definition, not capable of being "won" in any traditional sense of the word. There is no group, organization, or nation-state over whom control is sought.

As to how I would develop a theory based on my hypothesis... I am afraid that would take much more research than I have devoted to the topic at this point. From my limited studies on war in general and my own personal observations, my first target would be to better develop a hypothesis on the impetus to action against another group or nation-state. I'm heavily influenced by Clausewitz, Sun Tzu, and Lao Tzu (I realize he isn't normally considered a military theorist, but Tao Te Ching actually flows well with certain schools of thought), as well as my own experience.

Oh, and as to the overwhelming urge to impose rules on war... that seems to have more to do with the difficulty of using the spoils when such rules were never implemented than any specific revulsion of the acts themselves during actual conflict. In the event no such requirement exists and the aggressor has no need to mop up afterwards, as it were, then I suspect there would be little urge to follow those existing rules.

Just my two cents Ma'am. Outstanding question - thank you for posing it!

Response by CW2 Joseph Evans made Nov 2 at 2014 12:22 PM

2014-11-02T12:22:58-05:00

"It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it." ~ GEN Robert E. Lee

There is no reason for the gentrification of war but to disguise it as a noble profession that it is not. War, like all forms of violence, is for the purpose of power, control, and domination. That those who resort to it first are not those who are going to suffer on the front lines, make it even more abhorrent as the desperate act of bullies whose policies have failed. War is terrible, and it should be, and those who have not walked the trenches, should not be able to call for that last desperate act.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 1:31 PM

2014-11-02T13:31:22-05:00

I've always viewed War as something like a school yard argument that turns into a fight. The principles are roughly the same, there are two individuals (countries or states) that don't agree on something and they start talking first about it (peaceful communications). That will slowly erode into arguing (sanctions), which will lead to pushing (launching weapons from the sea or air). This ultimately will lead to a fight (war), it follows along the same lines, just people who have more to throw around in the way of weapons.

Also as we all know, War is a nasty terrible thing.

It is also a way to solve problems and to end strife. The are many things that War has done that has been to the betterment of humanity on a whole, just like there are things that it has done to hurt and hinder people.

Response by SPC David S. made Nov 2 at 2014 1:56 PM

2014-11-02T13:56:40-05:00

To me it is the absence of reasoning in resolving conflicting thoughts. We as intelligent rational beings know the course that war will lead us on yet persuade ourselves that war is the necessary action that will align these divergent thoughts. War does not change the way one thinks however it is merely a physical action that results in the subjugation of a group under another group. This is were I feel war betrays us as it does nothing to change the thought that lead to war in the first place. That's where I think the Romans succeeding in their strategy in creating their empire. They conquered but rebuilt and raised the standard of living. I like the thinking of Carl von Clausewitz and he goes beyond the causes and looks into human nature and the teleology of war.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 2 at 2014 2:22 PM

2014-11-02T14:22:51-05:00

An organized effort by a government or other large organization to stop or defeat something that is viewed as dangerous or bad.