Nice article. I think you should read Clausewitz’ book and see where he dovetails with your argument. Distilling him down to basics though is “war” is use of force to compel your enemy to do your will. He also lays out the spectrum from wars of limited aims and goals to unlimited war at the top end designed to completely (and he meant completely) destroy the enemy. The closest we ever probably got was WWII in the Pacific Theater if the Japanese didn’t capitulate after the atomic bombings.
Thanks Brett. Clausewitz' spectrum is somewhat different, since it focuses on ends rather than means: an insurgency like Mao's could be basically unlimited in its aims (complete takeover of the Chinese state) compared to the limited aims of a full-scale war like Desert Storm (expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait). Part 2 will make it clear where I'm going with this.
Nice article. I think you should read Clausewitz’ book and see where he dovetails with your argument. Distilling him down to basics though is “war” is use of force to compel your enemy to do your will. He also lays out the spectrum from wars of limited aims and goals to unlimited war at the top end designed to completely (and he meant completely) destroy the enemy. The closest we ever probably got was WWII in the Pacific Theater if the Japanese didn’t capitulate after the atomic bombings.
Thanks Brett. Clausewitz' spectrum is somewhat different, since it focuses on ends rather than means: an insurgency like Mao's could be basically unlimited in its aims (complete takeover of the Chinese state) compared to the limited aims of a full-scale war like Desert Storm (expelling the Iraqis from Kuwait). Part 2 will make it clear where I'm going with this.
Cool looking forward to it