Clausewitz, The State and War

CLAUSEWITZ, The State and War

Edited by Andreas Herberg-Rothe, Jan Willem Honig and Daniel Moran

Franz Steiner Verlag Stuttgart, 2011, 164pp.

This collection of essays is part of a series intended to ‘foster an integrative and inter-disciplinary study of the state’. It is not easy to read, particularly for those not familiar with the German language (the book retains some German words, presumably because their concept is not readily translated into English), but the effort is repaid.

Clausewitz seemed to be fascinated by the Trinitarian concept, applying it to his ‘Wondrous Trinity’ of the state, people, and military, and also to management of troop strength, space and time, as noted by Jan Willem Honig. His essay highlights how Clausewitz argued that fighting is central to war, because destroying the enemy’s means of resistance is the best way to impose a state’s will on them. While using the maximum force can ensure that this result is achieved promptly, however, fighting was not an end of itself to Clausewitz.

Anders Palmgren highlights Clausewitz’s emphasis on leaders acting in the interests of the state, not as they might wish to act as private citizens. This concept, separating an individual leader’s personal philosophy from government actions, seems less easy to accept in modern times. Palmgren also notes Clausewitz’s wish to interweave society and army, to make best use of the power and commitment of individuals.

Andreas Herberg-Rothe writes that Clausewitz accepted that states have to change to survive. His belief in equality before the law, an independent judiciary, and ministerial responsibility is now widely accepted in democratic states. However, Clausewitz also recognised that mutual recognition of an opponent’s right to exist is an essential pre-condition for restraining war’s tendency toward absolute violence. Incompatible ideological or social differences can lead to everlasting war, or the extermination of one side (perhaps both had the Cold War become hot).

Daniel Moran’s essay notes that it is difficult to judge how much Clausewitz intended to revise On War. However, he apparently intended to maintain the concept of two kinds of war, either to overthrow the enemy completely, or limited war. Clausewitz also would have retained the concept of war as the continuation of policy using other means. This concept, and that of complete overthrow of the enemy, are perhaps the most commonly recognised aspects of Clausewitz’s thought, and fit with Clausewitz’s belief that war’s character would vary with its political purpose.

Murielle Cozette’s essay on the consideration of Clausewitz by the French philosopher Raymond Aron is particularly interesting. Aron studied Clausewitz in the context of the World Wars and the Cold War. One key concept, derived from Clausewitz’s ‘Wondrous Trinity’, is the concept of the state as the personalised trustee of the interests of the whole community, this trusteeship serving as a restraint to prevent escalation to extremes. This concept is important, because it emphasises the importance of the government representing the interests of all citizens, not just those who share its ideological predilections. To Aron, the concept that L’état, c’est moi (or my party) excludes moderation.

Antulio Echevarria’s essay on Clausewitz and the Cold War is of most interest in demonstrating the intellectual gymnastics in which many Cold War philosophers engaged. Herberg-Rothe’s concluding essay on Clausewitz and the democratic warrior studies the recent rise of the professional fighter, and the corresponding decline of the army of citizens in uniform. He sees this as enabling a strategy of curbing violence to allow the ‘organic development of democratic self-determination’, not imposing democracy by force. At best, the jury seems still out on the success of this strategy.

Worth reading, despite the difficult style.

JOHN DONOVAN