On War summary

Before we dive into the heady subject of nineteenth-century warfare, let’s take a quick moment to break down the text. Carl von Clausewitz’s On War is divided into four sections. The first deals with establishing an agreed-upon definition for war, the second gets into theory and criticism, while the third and fourth sections touch upon strategy and tactics. So, let’s follow Clausewitz’s lead by looking at four Blink chapters that grab some of the main points from each section.

The first question is: What is war? The author boils it down to its most basic elements and says that war is essentially a duel that is carried out on a large scale. He also compares it to a wrestling match, in that we have two forces, each attempting to bend the other to its will. The goal for both sides is to reach a point where the other is incapable of fighting any further. More often than not, this means that the goal is to disarm the opponent.

How is this goal achieved? In one word: violence. These days we have culture wars and information wars, but in the context of the early nineteenth century, the war we’re talking about is by its very nature violent. It uses physical force to achieve its ends. For the most part, we’re still talking about two armies, with columns of soldiers, squaring off against each other on a battlefield.

Now, this leads us to one of the first of moral quandaries. Every step of the way, the author is interested in exploring the moral issues of war. And right from the get-go, we find ourselves faced with a tricky question. Let’s say that we admit that war is an inescapably violent affair. How violent must it be? Even back then, there were some folks who believed that a war could be decided with a minimum amount of bloodshed. The author, however, isn’t convinced. In fact, he cautions that such an approach would likely backfire. If the goal is the disarmament and bending of your opponent's will, then using your physical power to its utmost extent is the only logical approach. As the author sees it, the idea of moderation in war is absurd.

Clausewitz continues to define war in other ways. He makes a point of stating that war isn’t a single battle, nor is it an isolated event. For every war, there’s a backstory of events and political decisions that led up to the conflict. Therefore, we can see war as a matter of reciprocal actions. This means that every step of the way, each side is reacting to the other. Each side must make judgments on how best to react. But for the most part, there’ll be an escalation during this process until war is declared and one side is disarmed.

That said, it’s important to note that the result of a war is never the final word. If you disarm your opponent today, that doesn’t mean they won’t rearm and attack you again tomorrow. In fact, whatever hostility they felt toward you before may be small potatoes compared to the anger they feel after being defeated. This anger and fierce resentment shouldn’t be underestimated, either. Such motivations of spirit can be a deciding factor in an army’s performance.

This circles back to the author’s insistence that war is a matter of using utmost power. Leaving your opponent well-armed and capable of resuming their attack just doesn’t make sense. This also touches upon another important characteristic of war: the unknown. Some people credit Clausewitz with popularizing the concept of the “fog of war.” Indeed, it’s often the case that neither opponent fully knows the full extent of the other’s armament, their position, or how many soldiers they have in reserve. As a result, commanders are often forced to make decisions with incomplete information. This fact can also be seen to support the idea that one uses their utmost power as a general rule.

The lack of complete information also plays a large role in determining the qualities that make the best military commanders. What makes someone a military genius? While it should go without saying that a commander be intelligent, and have a keen understanding of human behavior, one must also be able to overcome the physical danger and suffering that goes hand-in-hand with war.

He describes war as a “great conquest over the unexpected,” and for this reason, he cites courage as a primary quality of a great leader. Courage in the face of physical danger, but also in the face of moral responsibility – in making tough decisions. One must be both firm and resolute, and calm under pressure, but also willing to take quick and bold action when faced with the unexpected.

In other words, a great commander needs a steady presence of mind. All the qualities of war – the danger, the suffering, the chance, the unknown – these are all things that can lead to a mind being consumed with doubt, which is about the worst thing a military commander can have.

Leaders also need to grapple with what the author considers the primary “friction” of war, which is that the aims of war are usually simple while achieving those aims is often incredibly difficult. This is one of the last points he makes in the first section. And it's a good note to leave on as we head into the second chapter. In many ways, war is simple. Like a wrestling match. But in other ways, it’s infinitely complex.