Theory of War- '' CLAUSEWITZ ON WAR ''

hello friends good afternoon and welcome to Ed aside live lectures dear friends today in global environmental conflicts we will be talking about theory for Clausewitz through own war to discuss this topic we have with us our subjects bert mr. Attlee maharaj mr. Barreiro Rajat ejective adjunct fellow at institute of chinese studies New Delhi without further ado I would like to welcome sir to our studios and request him to start the lecture thank you good afternoon friends I'm once again back to discuss war with you now what is a very interesting subject if you see what we do think about the fact that what is it what is the theory behind war we all know war involves lot of action it involves lot of weapons it involves countries but let's now get into the dive deep and get to know what exactly constitutes war in the 19th century we had one thinker call one closets he gave us the world in fact the theory of war closets to war is actually as big as Marx is to political economy he is widely quoted he is widely referred to and most of the nation states strategize based on this particular theory Carl von Clausewitz was a Persian general and a military thinker cloudlets is famous primarily as a military theorist who examined the dialectics of war based on his personal participation in Napoleonic Wars his principal book is known as all war it's a major work on the philosophy of war clutchless defined war in terms of a deal he said that war is nothing but a duel won an extensive scale if he would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up of war we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers so here he is taking the example of wrestling to explain war each wrestler strives by physical force to compel the other to overthrow the other as we seen in the whose coach at Dakar Dana is one of the primary aim of the wrestlers so this is basically lead Oh scotch it cardina and to put him on the ground the whole idea is that he is not able to resist again so this is how Claude rates begins the definition of war so war he further says that is an act of force you know you hear you are applying some force onto a onto your enemy to compel him to do what you want him to do to compel him to do your will war is different from other activities primarily because it involves violence and it involves a lot of bloodshed so clutchless basically defined war in in two terms he said that there is one war which is idealized form of war which he's termed as a theoretical war he then moved on to say that since the perfect war the absolute war is not possible in the world that we live in in the environment that we live in therefore there is also a real war a war which happens in the environment which imposes lot of constraints on the entire conduct of war so then let's see that he again says the dame of war as we have explained is to impose your will on the enemy if I am saying this you do this for example you see in Iraq war where the United States told Saddam Hussein to dismantle his nuclear arsenal Saddam Hussein when he did not agree then the United States launched its weapons and forced him to accept they will they invaded the country they went into his palace and he went into hiding so primarily every war purpose is to impose the will on the enemy to make him do what we want to do so according to klog vez theoretically this objective to achieve this objective it demands an instantaneous and maximum discharge of violence to completely overpower the enemy he also says that in this act of violence there is no logical limit to the application of absolute force and this he termed as an absolute war so if you were to imagine an absolute war absolute war would mean total annihilation of the enemy you don't stop anywhere you just continue to use force on him till he's actually annihilated completely decimated but the next question that we will see is is such a war possible and if such a war is not possible then why is it not possible what is it that constrains war from becoming absolute from becoming a totally and highlighting so this is what he has actually described as the absolute war and this is the first form of war it is not different than business if you see it is not different than any other activity that if you see if you leave business to itself the purpose of business is to earn profits so the business would if it is not constrained if there are no other constraining factors if there are no taxes there is nothing that the business would go absolutely berserk and earn maximum profit that's exactly what the war will do if it is left unchecked then what it does is it just goes on and on to just kill and to destroy which cannot be the aim of any war total destruction if we were to use war if you were to use all the nuclear weapons to destroy the earth then there is no purpose in that particular war that war doesn't achieve anything because that war divorce the entire mankind it eats up the entire mankind so absolute war in theory and apps so it is called an absolute war or war in theory or it's an abstract war you can use any terms to describe this kind of a war so as we've already explained it's a war waged with all available forces and resources without interruption until one side can impose its will on the other is what we call as war in theory or abstract war this war can become uncontrived and controllable due to two factors and those two factors the dilemma is that if I am fighting with somebody and if I do not use extreme methods if I do not use my complete force my the complete arsenal that is available to me then I am giving the enemy an opportunity a window of opportunity to use his extreme means now if he is able to do it before me then I may get defeated so this particular dilemma basically compels me to use maximum force and this is what leads to absolute war now since the aim of the war is basically to disarm the enemy so that he doesn't have weapons to fight back with you so each opponent continues to fight continues to extract the maximum from the war for himself but absolute war is irrational it is illogical it is guided by its own dynamics it doesn't listen to anybody and it gains momentum on its own now this form of war is definitely dangerous for the mankind the mankind can neither sustain it nor can it let it happen you know we got a glimpse of this kind of absolute war when America was to throw nuclear weapons in second world war on Japan the kind of destruction the scale of destruction that just a 20-kiloton weapon caused in Japan is well documented the cancerous effects of those weapons on generations has now been well documented so the world cannot actually move on the path of an absolute war if absolute war was to occur during the Cold War both Russia and that is the Soviet Union and the Americans would have killed each other with nuclear weapons because both possessed therein ample quantity to destroy each other's land absolutely but this did not happen this did not happen because there was some amount of sanity present in both the parties so they termed this as the whole doctrine nuclear doctrine in the during the Cold War was termed as mad mutually assured destruction M ad which basically meant that if you throw a weapons on me you you will hurt me but I will hurt you equally by throwing nuclear weapons on you and that would mean that both the parties would get destroyed in the process nobody wins but the purpose of war is to make is to win is to make the enemy do what you want him to do but if the enemy and his land itself gets annihilated in the entire process then there is no winner there is nobody on whom the victor can impose his will so that is the basic logic behind this it's extreme and instantaneous nature of this absolute war will not will not will not allow any other process to come in between will not allow any politics to come in between therefore this war has been termed as irrational and apolitical and such an absolute war can happen only in theory more and that is why it is termed as theoretical war as war which exists only on paper now we come to we known what is abstract for what is absolute war which is not possible at all then what is real war and that is a question which Clausewitz went on to address what is this real war in reality in real environment how does war happen how does it play out amongst the two opponents why does one act in a way he does during more so why absolute what doesn't happen in reality let's see the factors war is never an isolated act it is not self-contained it does not occur in a political vacuum and the enemies are never completely unfamiliar with each other in any war if you see the two enemies would know each other it's not that they're absolute strangers they've actually been interacting with each other's because much before the war happens you know there are negotiations which happen you try to tell the enemy to follow your line or not to take a particular course of action through talks through negotiations through diplomacy what actually happens when all the diplomacy fails so you don't war with an absolute stranger you war with somebody whom you know war is never confined to a single decisive act so a state does not have to use all its force suppose there was a war between China and India on the border issue it would not involve absolute use of force it would not involve the total use of force by India nor will China use its absolute force it will not come down to using each other using nuclear weapons on each other for example because the aim is limited the aim of the war is limited so the game itself limits the use of weapons and the use of and the choice of weapons that one uses in such a war so all available forces could never the other factor is that if you have all the forces available with you you will never be able to gather them together to launch if an effective strike against your enemy you know one could be placed in North the other is in South your forces are in the best because all corners of your borders of a country have to be protected so it can never happen that you leave Kashmir and bring all the forces to our own on chirper - to defend it so you so this that's that's exactly now if you understand the difference an absolute war would require absolute forces which can never happen so in a real war there are limited aims which need to be achieved with limited forces you make choices you may draw some forces from one end to another but you can't absolutely get all the forces together just to achieve one particular aim and the other factor is that the war doesn't have become absolutist because there is no final victory the vanquished will generally you see the situation he may go down if you have defeated somebody he may lie low for some time regroup himself to launch a fresh attack one you know that is quite possible so there is no final victory because there can be no final annihilation so now let's move on to another important aspect which is the effect of politics on war now we've been talking a lot about diplomacy we've been talking a lot about what what constrains the absolute war now let's come down to the fact that what is this politics effect of politics on war what role does it play in constraining the war so the transition from absolute to real war is achieved by introducing the political objective for any war cannot be senseless use of violence war needs some object some aim and the Dame we have defined is to make the enemy follow your line to make him toe what you think is right so war is not an instrument to discharge senseless violence in reality war is actually confined in time and space it cannot go on endlessly so this window of opportunity in the war actually provides space for politics to enter and guide it we're now proceeding basically in a direction if you see the entire discourse is proceeding in a direction where we are making a transition from absolute to real war and in this transition in this transition the role that politics will is going to play and the role that politics plays to constrain to stop that instinct that animal instinct to just destroy entire nature to destroy the entire vegetations or to destroy the entire Earth so this is where we move next but absolute what is irrational illogical but the real war is not irrational and illogical says claw turrets the real war objectives are determined by politics political authorities determine the amount of effort that is required the amount of military effort that is required to achieve a particular aim the political purpose also determines the level of reciprocity or the level of response that your opponent will launch onto you as you explained earlier that both parties are rational actors at some level when they go to war they're not strangers to each other they're rational actors they do think logically so therefore they don't let the war to destroy each other absolutely now we come to limited war so somewhere in this entire process logic implies the existence and the logic of limited war which is limited in its context itself you know India and Pakistan have fought four wars with each other all these come under the category of limited war for example in 1948 the first war that we had with Pakistan the Pakistanis sent irregular troops into Kashmir we launched an offensive against them drove them out and ensured that we if we were able to restrict Pakistan from coming into our territory war combined with politics is no longer to discharge maximum violence war is an event that can range from overwhelming you was a force to minor engagements from Wars of extermination down to simple armed observations in our next session we will now move on to discuss more of what actually cloudlets dialectics of wars means so we're discussing that war happens in a limited context war cannot be absolute war is limited war in the real world is limited its purpose is limited so in that context if we see war actually is an act of policy because policy sets both the context for the war and shapes how it is fought political calculations introduce the rational calculations of ends and means costs and benefits and determine the investment that a protagonist is prepared to invest in order to achieve its political ends to enhance the national interests as the same for example if you see when Pakistan attacked India through terrorist strikes which is famously known as the 26/11 attacks India short constraint many Indians wanted India to go and retaliate many Indians most of the Indians in fact wanted in dena me to go and launch a full-scale war on Pakistan but that did not happen because the Indian state at that time did its cost-benefit analysis it basically laid out its strategy which prevented it from going ahead and launching a full-scale attack on Pakistan at that particular stage the Indian state felt that there are other means which can be employed to teach Pakistan a lesson similarly when Pakistan had attacked India the Indian Parliament the Pakistani terrorists a direct attacked Indian Parliament that time the president's rattle beary watch pie had sent there was an operation program and Prime Minister had sent his forces right up to the Pakistani model but he never made them cross the border for six months the forces were just stationed on the borders without fighting war it was a message which India was sending to Pakistan similarly if you see Kargil war in during Kargil war politics played its role if it was given absolutely to military the military may have gone deep inside Pakistan to launch it strikes but they were politics which restrained it Indian Air Force never crossed the borders you never cross the LOC so these are the constraining factors these are the sub politics plays into the war and which is important to constrain war from going absolute war you must have heard this very you know famous saying and we just quoted very often in most of the strategic literature most of the literature whenever war is discussed people often say war is a continuation of politics by other means and this is one big contribution which cloudlets has given to our entire understanding of this phenomenon and this philosophy of war the political object is the goal of any war war is basically a means to achieve that political goal war is subordinate to politics as I have already explained to you you know if if war was not subordinate to politics you know after the Parliament attack Indian forces which are stationed on the borders for six months would have just mashed into Pakistan and launched a full-scale war but that did not happen so this is what is politics role politics is playing although political elements restrict war plots which is saying it's not necessary that states sometimes I have more compelling inspiring political motives or higher potential stakes to escalate the violence so politics is actually you know it is it is determining when to excavate a particular conflict and to what level that conflict needs to be escalated you know it's like a car if you're driving your car you can't continuously put your foot on the accelerator you can't let your car fly or go at speeds of 120 km/h on a road which is in which the other traffic is flowing because there are other traffic you cannot just smash other cars and just go ahead because in the process you will get smashed yourself so this is the basic logic that escalation of war has to be moderated war at every stage needs moderation and that moderation moderating element is brought in by politics the purpose of war is to serve politics the power of purpose of war is not to serve its if the context in the nature of the conflict are determined by its political objectives then Clausewitz introduces determinants that inherently constrain the discharge of absolute war and make limited war or war in reality more likely he groups these elements under the heading of friction countless minor incidents the kind you can never really foresee combine to lower the general level of performance so that one always falls short of intended goals so there is when you are operating suppose in a jungle during a war there are lot of constraining factors whether could be one big constraining factor which could prevent you from achieving goal at a particular time an army unit may have thought of crossing a river at a particular time the fact is they may have made all the calculations but weather situation could change and the levels of water could rise higher at a particular moment at that particular moment at which the army unit was supposed to cross now this would prevent the army unit from going ahead and crossing the river it does not cross the river because if it was absolute worried the whole unit the whole bunch of soldiers would have just gone into the water irrespective of what the water flow is what the currents are and what the water levels are so this is what friction in the conduct of war has been caused by weather similarly there are other unforeseen circumstances which can happen your leader may fall sick the leader who's supposed to lead a unit may fall sick in between so he cannot when the whole unit is constrained to move ahead at a pace at which it was supposed to move so the whole timing goes or I so these and many other factors in the communications may fail so you may not be able to get the correct orders from their headquarters just as Mobile's fail at times as just as we have cold drops at times things can happen which are not within our control so this is a friction this is a normal thing which imposes constraints on war from going absolute this friction is what clockface has identified in his philosophy as John's friction he's described as as a function of human frailty physical exertions the effects of tiredness or exhaustion on the body and its ability to think danger which makes clear acts of judgment more difficult and the very uncertainty of war poor communications have explained of physical phenomenon such as weather may constrain the pace of military operations finally clogs wits emphasizes the element of chance in making war a gamble so war becomes a gamble it can be and it's frequent reliance on luck and guesswork as he posits that no other human activity is so consciously bound up with chance the net effect is to render what looks H IVA Boleyn good in theory practically very very difficult chance makes what a gamble as we just said so what finally plugs which emphasizes is that the element of chance in making war the gamble it can be and it's frequent reliance and luck and guesswork the net effect is to render what looks H IVA Belen good in theory practically difficult so suspension of military action as a explain you that military action may have to be suspended at times however extreme and absolute and political objective or conflict unless an enterprising martial spirit is in command inactivity will be the rule and progress the exception war cannot be fought continuously there are breaks in conduct of war because both sides have an incentive to take offensive action simultaneously both sides being constrained by a desire to wait for a better moment before acting poor intelligence and imperfect knowledge of the situation may lead to suspension of military activities now we come to the trinitarian analysis what was that sir given us having specified the cogent determinants that establish why absolute war does not occur in reality closets builds on the argument by introducing the conceptual framework that underpins how the real wars are actually fought in proposing and Trinitarian structure for the study of war he establishes the most critical elements that is potentially infinite series of permutations reflect the unique character of each war war is more than a true Somalian he says get a good Civil War that slightly adapts its characteristics to give Corky's as a total phenomenon its dominant tendencies always makes war a remarkable trinity composed of primordial violence war means violence hatred and enmity so absolute war will have three things violence hatred and enmity which are to be required regarded as blind natural forces of play of chance and probability within which the creative spirit is free to roam and of its elements of subordination as an instrument policy which makes its subjects to reason alone so now we come to this in arguing that war is more than a homily on an animal that merely changes color to match its surroundings but otherwise remains identical what clause which is saying is that war is a phenomenon that depending on the conditions can actually take on radically different forms the basic sources of changes in those conditions lies in the elements of Trinity far from compromised comprising the people the army and the government Clausewitz Trinity is really made up of three categories of forces irrational forces as we have explained the violent emotion hatred enemity and the non rational forces that is forces which are not the product of human thought or intent such as friction and play of chance or probability and the last is rationality Wars subordination to Reason war as an instrument of policy the Trinitarian nature of God if you see the behavior of each nation and its capacity to wage war are dependent on three groups of factors the people so he's identified these trinity in terms of people government and the military so he says what war requires is passion which is people people give the the nation gives the passioned to the military to go and fight this the nation must have passion to go and fight for a support it must have that motivation to go and go into the harm's way then it's the military whose effectiveness is a function of the quality of the commanders and the factors and the probability which is called chance so we have one element as passion chance and the third element is a government that sets the political objectives and induces reason into war so we have chance passion and reason this is the Trinity which cloudlets gave to us the interaction of these three elements the components the passion chance and reason determines the way a country prosecutes of or the country fights a war and the particular time and the particular political context in which it fights a war so the whole game is of chance passion and reason his beautifully cloudlets has broken down war real war into these three elements and explained to us even today how the modern even modern wars are conducted today so the whole idea behind politics is that how to moderate war how to bring it down how to bring down it's it's lethal effects how not to let it become absolutely in high leading in reality friction chance the difficult of concentrating maximum force at a diverse I say point the impact of moral forces poor intelligence and inactivity modified the execution of war these factors inherently modify moderate the instantaneous nature of absolute war in reality therefore a spectrum of components all act at varying degrees of potency to constrain a maximum discharge of violence to overthrow the enemy or moderate a senseless act of escalation to an extreme being driven by its own in an and logical clock this tells us that the conscious conduct of war that is strategy what we call should be continuation of rational calculations and policies but also that war in a will inevitably originates and exists within the chaotic and unpredictable realm of politics so war is intricately linked to politics you cannot separate war from politics war from politics looks to be existing only on paper or an abstract world war clutchless explains is like a pendulum like an object which is suspended among three magnets and those three magnets we have explained our chance reason chance passion and reason he is referring to the observed scientific fact that such a pendulum once said swinging among three centres of Attraction behaves in a nonlinear fashion it never establishes a recurring pattern so this is how his wonderfully explained to us what actually war is so what swings between fashion chance and reason and that is what constrains it from becoming so finally I would like to conclude by saying that plots which approach to war as we've understood is dialectical approach some people say that he was probably in his times was influenced by Hegel when he decided on writing this book but one war basically uses polarities to rationalize a subject of great depth and breadth Clausewitz consistently presents an observation with its opposites theory is set against practice model forces are compared with physical forces there is attack and there is defense so it's a beautiful pendulum that he's constructed and explained us this philosophy and phenomenon of war thank you so much on that note I would like to thank Sir for this very enriching discussion and thank you dear friends for watching our show stay tuned and keep watching thank you

Channel: cec

Views: 14,437

Rating: 4.826087 out of 5

Keywords: CEC, CEC Edusat, CEC New Delhi, CEC-UGC, Theory of War- '' CLAUSEWITZ ON WAR '', Mr. Atul Bhardwaj, 10-6-16, History

Id: Le3kWIm6Xxk

Length: 46min 21sec (2781 seconds)

Published: Mon Jun 13 2016