Military Theories Of War Essay
Military theory spans centuries of conflict all across the world. As such, military theorists have written in a variety of military climates, varying from the absence of gun powder to the presence of nuclear weapons. However, some military theories are transcendent. Some elements of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz are eternally wise. While their similarities may become universal truths, their differences are equally worthy of study because, it is in the differences where choices are made. Sun Tzu and Clausewitz agreed that war is chaos, military action is a tool for diplomatic goals and, as such, the results of warfare are not final. Their differences lie in how they advocate for waging war. The style and preparations for war contrast. This is where
…show more content…
Clausewitz understood that “so-called mathematical factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad that weaves its way throughout the length of the tapestry,” meaning nothing in war is ever certain and, therefore, one’s strategy can never be certain. Likewise, Sun Tzu acknowledged, “in war there may be one hundred changes in each step.” The strategy involved in winning a war must change constantly because one must manage the variables in one’s own strategy and, simultaneously, one must attempt to affect the enemy’s strategy. According to Sun Tzu, war is non-rational because you are in constant exchange with an enemy, “as water shapes its flow in accordance with the ground, so an army manages its victory in accordance with the situation of the enemy. And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.” Clausewitz als believed war is non-rational because of human nature, “in a world dominated so much by chance- courage, daring, boldness, and trust in one’s luck are essential qualities for a great commander.” These two ideals go hand-in-hand with one another. When fighting a war, one must constantly react to the enemy’s efforts, which are unpredictable because the enemy is human and reacting to one’s own decisions. This continual interchange creates a non-rational environment full
Clausewitz understood that “so-called mathematical factors never find a firm basis in military calculations. From the very start there is an interplay of possibilities, probabilities, good luck and bad that weaves its way throughout the length of the tapestry,” meaning nothing in war is ever certain and, therefore, one’s strategy can never be certain. Likewise, Sun Tzu acknowledged, “in war there may be one hundred changes in each step.” The strategy involved in winning a war must change constantly because one must manage the variables in one’s own strategy and, simultaneously, one must attempt to affect the enemy’s strategy. According to Sun Tzu, war is non-rational because you are in constant exchange with an enemy, “as water shapes its flow in accordance with the ground, so an army manages its victory in accordance with the situation of the enemy. And as water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.” Clausewitz als believed war is non-rational because of human nature, “in a world dominated so much by chance- courage, daring, boldness, and trust in one’s luck are essential qualities for a great commander.” These two ideals go hand-in-hand with one another. When fighting a war, one must constantly react to the enemy’s efforts, which are unpredictable because the enemy is human and reacting to one’s own decisions. This continual interchange creates a non-rational environment full