>The War of a community—of whole Nations, and particularly

>>31163608
>War in the real world, as we have already seen, is not an extreme thing which expends itself at one single discharge; it is the operation of powers which do not develop themselves completely in the same manner and in the same measure, but which at one time expand sufficiently to overcome the resistance opposed by inertia or friction, while at another they are too weak to produce an effect; it is therefore, in a certain measure, a pulsation of violent force more or less vehement, consequently making its discharges and exhausting its powers more or less quickly—in other words, conducting more or less quickly to the aim, but always lasting long enough to admit of influence being exerted on it in its course, so as to give it this or that direction, in short, to be subject to the will of a guiding intelligence., if we reflect that War has its root in a political object, then naturally this original motive which called it into existence should also continue the first and highest consideration in its conduct. Still, the political object is no despotic lawgiver on that account; it must accommodate itself to the nature of the means, and though changes in these means may involve modification in the political objective, the latter always retains a prior right to consideration. Policy, therefore, is interwoven with the whole action of War, and must exercise a continuous influence upon it, as far as the nature of the forces liberated by it will permit.

>>31163617
>>We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.


What did he mean by this?

File: gasmasks.png (37KB, 120x114px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 120x114px

>reading Von Clausewitz's works for politics.

>Close combat, man to man, is plainly to be regarded as the real basis of combat.
>War is politics by other means, and a duel on a larger scale.

>>31163631

that wars do not exist in a vacuum. nobody goes "let's you and him" fight on a national scale without some political agenda being advanced on either side. for a war to be successful, it must achieve a realistic, flexible political objective. the art of war is the art of making this happen.

>>31163735
>implying that's not true

/k/ isn't a place for serious discussion. This board is reserved for shitposting

>>31163855
b-b-but muh body count! We won Vietnam on the field!

>>31164361

1. it depends on how you frame the political objectives of the Vietnam war. i don't feel like i'm capable of articulating the possibilities, so i'll leave it to someone more familiar with that conflict.
2. i'm just summarizing what Clausewitz is saying. not saying if it's right or wrong.
3. there are people who have legitimate arguments against Clausewitz
4. Billy Boy Lind loves him some Prussian cock/Clausewitz and that might be reason enough to doubt him.

>>31164361
I've heard this argument so many times on /k/

>hurr durr we didn't actually lose in Vietnam

why are American so dumb

>>31164414
Oh come off it. Lind isn't the first hack who tries to look legitimate by quoting Clausewitz, doesn't make the idea that war and politics are continuations of each other the sole property of an unhinged monarchist

>>31164414
>i don't feel like i'm capable of articulating the possibilities, so i'll leave it to someone more familiar with that conflict.
And people actually familiar with the conflict will tell you that the entire idea of Westmorelandian Warfare is bullshit and has no connection to reality.

>>31166495

America's defeat in Vietnam was a political choice, not a military failure.

>>31163608
Clausewitz was too defensively minded. Maneuver Warfare is the way to go and Sun Tzu was the dude in regards to that mindset.

File: berliner.jpg (224KB, 686x385px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 686x385px

>>31166495

you misunderstand the schwerpunkt of the 4th generational mission type orders used by the Christian Marines, or as the Prussians would say, Ich bin ein Berliner.