Continuing Politics
In another life, I received a degree in War Studies. Watch as exercise those unused muscles.
My friend Nis has a very brief post on the use of artillery in Iraq to place US forces in perceived position of power as a prelude to negotiation. With all due respect, I think he is mistaken in his understanding of Clausewitz. He states
I’m not studied enough on Clausewitz but this aspect of warfare is either an affirmation or a qualification of his famous (and over-used) dictum: War is the continuation of politics.
In the modernist interpretation (where I think we should place C. himself), this meant that war took over when politics had exhausted it’s role. In the post-modern interpretation, it means that war is just politics by other means.
My understanding is that Clausewitz’s famous maxim is that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Which means that What Nis refers to as the post-modern interpretation is actually the original intent; political goals are usually pursued through diplomacy and economics, but war is the pursuit of the same goals through other, violent, means. The distinction between this and the concept that war begins before politics ends is slight, and is only important in as much as it helps to show the continuing utility of Clausewitzian thought.
However, Nis is absolutely right in saying that the concept of war as pursuit of political goals through other means is complimentary to the concept of 4G warfare. 4G warfare is, in my opinion, best understood as a devolution of war-making power from nation-states to non-states actors, generally facilitated through increased destructive capabilities and communication technologies. Any sufficiently organized group can pursue political goals, but in the past only a nation-state had the wherewithal to initiate force. Technological changes mean that that monopoly is no longer necessary.
Back to law blogging soon.
