On The Clausewitz Haters

I'm following the excellent Clausewitz roundtable going on at Chicago Boyz. One of the more striking things I've observed about Clausewitz in the modern era is the growing (and hip) tradition of Clausewitz-bashing. Martin Van Creveld and John Keegan are the more recent Clausewitz bashers, but J.F.C. Fuller and Basil Liddell-Hart have also bitterly attacked Clausewitz. Some aspects of this are understandable--Creveld and Keegan subscribe to culturalist theories of war that scoff at the notion of war as an instrumental activity. Fuller and Liddell-Hart wrongly blame Clausewitz for the carnage of the First World War. Indeed, Liddell-Hart's idea of an "indirect approach" is explicitly framed against a cardboard cutout of Clausewitz as the "mahdi of mass." A more reasonable criticism voiced of Clausewitz is that his theories are not applicable to non-state actors such as gangs, drug cartels and network warfare agents. So is Clausewitz of any use to us in low-intensity conflict?

Without any reservations, yes. At the very least military action of any kind--especially against difficult forces such as non-state actors--requires a solid understanding of means and ends. The Clausewitzian strategic framework provides a solid mechanism for utilizing force for political ends. We can see in many irregular conflicts the tragedy of war waged without a clear objective and mechanism for implementing it, of men and women sacrificed for a dubious political end state. Additionally, conflicts against non-state actors are hyper-political---even the most minor tactical action is also an information operation. It is more important than ever to put force within a political context. For this reason, it is odd that some theorists of postmodern warfare disparage Clausewitz.

As Mark T. Clark states in his article "Does Clausewitz Apply to Criminal-States?" we cannot assume that states are the only entities capable of political calculation and behavior. A Mexican drug cartel using force against the state to carve out its own space for commerce is engaging in a political action. Additionally, the state is a recent addition to the world stage and warlords, city-states, merchant guilds, and other actors have waged warfare and political struggle long before it.