Be ready for tonight’s open twitter discussion group for ‘On War’ — Book 1, Chapters 1 & 2!!

As this is twitter a few notes on conduct below.

#ononwar

1/ https://twitter.com/teaandtactics/status/1351176418793840641

1. The text has priority.

1a. There’s much debate about when he wrote what; what is or is not completed; what he would have wanted to say — that doesn’t matter. What matters is what the text does (or doesn’t) say.

#ononwar

/2

2. Multiple translations are great — we can use linguistic triangulation to narrow ideas down. But if you cite something, please indicate which version:

VK - the German;
G - Graham;
J - Jolles;
HP - Howard & Paret
etc.

#ononwar

/3

3. Use #ononwar to help consolidate our thoughts into a narrow spot in the twittersphere.

(Can you imagine if we got this trending?! Ha!)

Thanks to . @DarkLaughterTDB for the hashtag!

#ononwar

/4

4. Be civil.

I know this is a giant cesspool but let’s make this the toxic drum we can all cling onto together.

#ononwar

/5

5. Standby for future evolutions. Comments, provided they’re constructive, are welcome.

See you tonight!

#ononwar

/6

6. This is the only fight club where the requirement is to talk ONLY about fight club.

#ononwar

/7

2a. Cite with Book and Chapter, as able. For instance, this week’s reading is Book 1, Chapter 1-2 or 1.1-2.

#ononwar

/8

WEEK ONE (1.1-2)

Q: How does temporality (e.g. duration) influence Clausewitz’s conception of war?

A starting point is the movement from extremes to modification in reality, or by reality.

#ononwar

/9

Ideas Examined

This text opens with the question "What is war?" and lays out in §2 an initial "simple" definition of war. There is never a point at which "not-war" is possibility. War is. Then the investigation begins.

#ononwar

/10

Part of this movement from the "simple to the complex" is the expansion to a "duel on an extensive scale" -- not only whereby this du(a)lity maintained, but such that the point of origin remains grounded in something fundamentally human. Two wrestlers.

#ononwar

/11

There's something deeply ironic? wonderful? poetic? satisfying? that one of the fundamental moderating tendencies of reality are human "deficiencies" -- that "man with his incomplete organization is always below the line of absolute perfection" (G, 7)

#ononwar

/12

§7, like §8 & §9, is a fascinating move from the hypothetical posed at the end of §6 -- "Will ['the pure conception of war'] ever take place in reality? It will if," three conditions hold.

§7 is a rebuttal of the first, §8 of the second, and §9 of the last.

#ononwar

/13

I think §8's rebuttal has the most important ramifications for his theory -- it's introduces the political element early with allies, is deeply linked to war's temporality and spatiality, and the limitations of effective coordination.

#ononwar

/14

§7 is fascinating for philosophical reasons. Let's unpack it.

First, it's refuting the idea that war could be (1) "a completely isolated act," that (2) "arrises suddenly" such that it is without (3) "previous history" between (5) "the combatant States"

#ononwar

/15

INTERLUDE

In tweet 15, it turns out, I cannot count 1, 2, 3, 5

#ononwar

/16

§7 exposes his philosophical commitments.

We can, reasonably, form judgments of the other "from what he is and what he does" even in an adversarial, competitive relationships.

Inductive reasoning is necessary and valuable.

#ononwar

/17

I find §7 helpful to identify his epistemic commitments BEYOND the laws of probability.

We may not know what the Will is, but we can KNOW something about the Will since we see that "it indicates what it will be tomorrow by what it is today."

#ononwar

/18

That we can use induction, that we can have a sense of the past from which we can abstract for guidance on how to act today means that Wars are never random, in the strictest sense -- they come from somewhere, over time; there is a collection of past incidents.

#ononwar

/19

Here is an instance of temporality -- of the past, of history -- that limits war in its purest conception. We also have a cross-over into the epistemic. Knowledge of AND existence of the past (history) prevents the perfect burst of war.

#ononwar

/20

Yes, now.

#ononwar

/21

C L A U S E W I T Z T O N I G H T

Book I, Chapters 3-8

#ononwar

/22

WEEK Two (1.3-8)

Q: How does the mind, body, and soul integrate in the Commander?

Not translated well in the Graham is Virtuosität (virtuosity).

#ononwar

/23

Let’s begin by looking at a few different translation openings.

HP: emphasize “virtuosity” ; “gifts of the intellect” and “exceptional achievements”

#ononwar

/24

J: “certain perfection” ; “qualifications of intellect and temperament” ; “degree of distinction”

#ononwar

/25

The French translation by Nicolas Waquet is interesting because it translates the German words ‘Verstandes’ and ‘Gemüts’ as ‘esprit’ and ‘cœur’ — we find esprit later in courage d’esprit (resolution) a phrase that Carl used and kept in French.

#ononwar

/26

We are left with collection of elements that build up to a kind of excellence.

Some combination of intellect, understanding, temperament, heart, spirit, and soul is necessary.

But it requires action, for how else are we to approach the achievements?

#ononwar

/27

Another way, perhaps, to ask this is to look at to what extent his formulation of what elements make up a genius contribute to the will?

(Also: what is his view of the will?)

Recall: war is the use of violence to compel an opponent to fulfill our WILL.

#ononwar

/28

There must be "an harmonious association of powers" to which no ONE predominates.

However, courage, of course, is "the first quality of a warrior"

BUT courage has multiple flavors.

#ononwar

/29

There is physical courage and moral courage.

Physical courage is either a kind of indifference or fueled by positive motives or impulse facing danger to the person.

Aristotle would object to the conflation of fearlessness with rashness in indifference.

#ononwar

/30

Moral courage is more complicated. (cc: @KaurinShanks)

It is "courage before responsibility, whether it be before the judgment-seat of external authority, or of the inner power, the conscience."

Though Carl on chooses to deal with the former. Why?

#ononwar

/31

Dishes break.

#ononwar

/32

Upon reflection there are two qualities of the intellection that are necessary:

1. coup d'œil : the finding the "traces of inner light"

2. resolution : the courage to "follow this faint light"

This mind's eye (intuition?) is balanced by courage of conviction.

#ononwar

/33

This is an intellectual courage "in face of responsibility, therefore to a certain extent against moral danger."

This is 'courage d'esprit', which is related to the intellect/understanding but it is an act of feeling.

Reason and emotions merge.

#ononwar

/34

Resolution influences the will.

However writers describe them, Carl argues, they are "manifestations of the heroic nature [that] might be regarded as one and the same power of volition, modified according to circumstances" and relate in some way to the soul.

#ononwar

/35

If we have an appeal to the HERO then we have an appeal to HONOR.

"the soul's thirst for honor and renown" - in all its manifestations serves as the "vivifying principle which gives the enormous body [War] a spirit."

#ononwar

/36

He leaves us with the question: "Has there ever been a great Commander destitute of the love of honor, or is such a character even conceivable?"

#ononwar

/37

"To conduct a whole War...to a successful termination, there must be an intimate knowledge of State policy in its higher relations. The conduct of the War and the policy of the State here coincide, & the General becomes at the same time the Statesman."

#ononwar

/38

To next week!

A Clausewitzian sensibility.

#ononwar

/39

MORE CLAUSEWITZ () !!

BOOK II, Chapters 1-3.

#ononwar

/40

WEEK THREE (2.1-3)

Q: How is knowledge converted into real power?

#ononwar

/41

Power is not a word Clausewitz often uses, even if it is an essential, implied element of his theory.

(H&P: "genuine capability")

(J: "real skill")

But there is an overarching question about HOW to create ACTION.

#ononwar

/42

Theory would help.

But attempts to theorize war have failed since they are material and one-sided.

A theory needs to account for war's three peculiarities:

1. Moral Forces

2. Living Reaction

3. Uncertainty

#ononwar

/43

First, war is fighting.

And "fighting alone is the efficient principle" in war.

And "fighting is a trial of strength of the moral and physical forces by means of the latter."

#ononwar

/44

In I.1.5 "powers of resistance" are described as a combination of "the sum of available means" and "the strength of the Will."

Will, it seems, can be characterized as "strength of volition," which is a guess based on "the strength of the motives."

It's squishy.

#ononwar

/45

So, "Positive Theory is Impossible."

These elements are "human, or animal if we will."

They range from sheer hostility to courage to fear and include "all others accompanying man in his life's journey."

A theory of war must account for the human.

#ononwar

/46

Therefore, war is neither an ART nor a SCIENCE because the object with which it interacts is neither the "inanimate matter" of science, nor the "living but still passive and yielding subject" of the arts, but SOCIAL "against a living and reacting force."

#ononwar

/47

War is social.

"It is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from [other parts of social life]."

Or like a "business competition, which is also a conflict of human interests and activities"

#ononwar

/48

In I.2, "The decision by arms is, for all operations in War, great and small, what cash payment is in bill transactions. However remote from each other these relations, however seldom the realization may take place, still it can never entirely fail to occur."

#ononwar

/49

And so we hit the distinction between tactics and strategy.

The object of tactics is victory.

(Shameless plus: See my forthcoming . @MC_UPress Annotated Guide to Tactics or my . @Strategy_Bridge review https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2020/3/23/clausewitzian-deep-tracks-reviewing-guide-to-tactics-or-a-theory-of-combat)

The means are military forces.

#ononwar

/50

Tactics is "the formation and conduct of the fighting" which composes the "single acts, complete in themselves, which we call combat" that is, or makes up, "the conduct of War."

It is "the theory of the USE of military forces in combat."

Use is action.

#ononwar

/51

Strategy is more difficult because its means are "signification."

And so "We fall into an error of this description if we attribute to strategical combinations a power independent of tactical results."

Or if we forget the limits of what is tactically possible.

#ononwar

/52

Or — to go all philosophy of language — if we talk about the senses independent of referents.

The means of strategy are phenomenal.

The decision — victory or loss.

They are out there in the world, however ephemeral.

#ononwar

/53

There is polarity in the decision but not in the form.

Attack and defense are not a polarity.

They "have a common relation external to themselves...it is not the things but their relations which have the polarity."

These relations are the means of strategy.

#ononwar

/54

The object of strategy is peace.

But if not directly peace, indirectly.

The object becomes other means that are used as other "special significations" that build towards the ultimate object of peace, or the "set at rest [of] the relations of different States."

#ononwar

/55

Enough for tonight!

On to Week Four!

#ononwar

/56