Clausewitz recognised how his writings might be abused or misinterpreted long before his beloved wife printed these under the auspicious title ‘On War’. This misinterpretation or abuse, has always represented war as something unavoidable in the world, and between states. Of course this can be traced from the early classical-world writings of Thucydides (A History of The Peloponnesia War), to Xenophones, and so forth and forth. However, it was Clausewitz who changed the focus of attention from the merely mechanical debate and focus, and toward the abstractive aspects of what war was really about? His thesis was, ”war is a merely continuation of policy by other means’. Now from this quote is where my challenge to the existing thoughts comes in. And I use clausewitz own argument in such a battle.
For me, in short, Clausewitz is misrepresented since he seems to have failed to extended his thought, and was due largely to sudden death, which he recognise made his work not entirely finished, and more open to misinterpretation. I can not say what he might have clarified down the line, but, I can attempt to clarify my own thoughts from the existing readings and from observation and participation, and my conclusions are;
”war is (a) a continuation of a failed policy, and (b) always a policy of the weaker and never the stronger actor, especially, those of economic strength and self-sustaining never go to war”, and not the so-called thesis of ‘democracies never go to wars”.
If examined under the framework of what we have done since last month, where we saw the west to have been the only states/actors to be going to wars, especially in the much wealthier and naturally-resourced regions of the world, than others. This framework support the present thesis, that since the west were no longer able at certain times to politically manoeuvre a favourable political/policy solution, they always use their preponderance military strength, made largely by their understanding that, since they are weak in economics, natural resources, geography, they will have to invest more on military force and development, and legitimise and hail the use of such a tool as normal in the global diplomatic relations.
In short, the wars are the pursuit activities by the weaker actors in the global, or local politics, and always come as a result of the failure of their prior efforts to get peacefully what they need from the other side.
War is not natural. War is not a glorifying policy of the strong. War is not strategic excellence or game of the genius, but it only illustrates that, one actor or group realising their weaknesses in real resources, felt left with no other choice but to invest in military preponderance (outnumbering all the others), and when it comes to fighting wars, it does not need a genius to fight a war, as always god is on the side of the bigger battalions, as Napoleon is claimed to have said.
To Sum the final thought: The West Invest in Defence, since it is their only tool of survival, competitiveness and political positioning in global affairs. The rest use their time focusing on internal matters, since they do not need to conquer others in order to get others’ resources by force. This is the logic of war from the western misrepresentation of the realities.
PLEASE DO NOT COPY, OR SHARE WITHOUT MY PERSONAL PERMISSION THIS ARTICLE, OR EVEN PRETEND TO HAVE HAD SIMILAR THOUGHTS, AS NONE EXIST, ABSOLUTELY ORIGINAL THESIS. ANY ATTEMPTS TO DO SO WITHOUT PERMISSION FROM THE AUTHOR/OWNER MIGHT FIND YOURSELF OPEN TO LEGAL ACTION. THIS IS BECAUSE I AM WRITING AT THE PRESENT AN IMPORTANT PAPER ON THE MATTER.