Military Philosophy

1 - Even if we hold "our" side constant (i.e., the US), does victory mean different things depending on the opponent? For example, would victory be different for a contest with Taliban, one with the DRPK, or perhaps a Marxist regime in Grenada or a hostage event in the Middle East? Is there some large principle we can abstract across these different types of contests? (Comment this)

2 - Thanks for you comment Joel. You are certainly right in that in recent years the definition of Victory seems to have been a result of political circumstance and not the result of an overall principle. If we are to be efficient as well as effective we need a basic principle beyond "Kill the enemy and break his stuff"> (Comment this)

3 - Heh. With Karl staring at us from the sidebar, how can we avoid the observation that victory, absent total, crushing victory like WWII is what we say it is.

WWII - the Finns fought on the side of the Germans, and were the only nation to do so that didn't end up under some form of occupation - given that their most likely occupier would have been the Soviet Union, they may well be able to justifiably argue that in the end, the were victorious.

Just as in the October War, both sides could claim a semblance of victory, though a muddled one, certainly. Sadat because in the end, he showed an Arab army could fight much better than expected, and he got much of what he wanted in the political maneuverings after the war, and the Israelis because they held on to their most strategic position - the Golan, smashed the Syrian Army in so doing, and still proved they could take a punch and come back with a devastating counter-punch.

We tend to define victory as an all-or-nothing, because among other things, historians, politicians and generals predecessors frame it that way, when the truth of the matter is rather more flexible.

 (Comment this)

4 - The object of war is to force the enemy to do our will.

"Our will" is a politically-defined term, and as such is beyond the scope of the military. It changes in every different circumstance and may change radically during a war when circumstances change. (see: France vs. Germany in 1870, 1871, 1914, 1916, 1918, 1940, etc)

A limited war has limited objectives, and as such victory looks different than it does during an unlimited war.

Absent very vague definitions of this nature, there is no overarching principle which can define victory. Definitions of this type are created by concrete context. Abstractions are merely masturbation. (Comment this)

5 - I think that Clausewitz was fairly cognitive on the point of victory. Mainly, he did not really define it. He talked much about "enforcing our will" on the enemy and the continuing rise and fall of the political process to the front of the war and then behind.

The truth is, the military does not win victories or define the word. They win and lose battles of various sizes and importance. In the end, it is the political process that determines the end of the war and its definition. Of note are the many wars that have ended, not because one or the other military force was depleted, destroyed or otherwise put in a position where they were unable to fight any more, but because the political structures of the opposing forces have come to an agreement on expectations or demands, whether they gained or lost.

In essence, the military is a tool of the state or organization. I believe that Clausewitz was correct in this estimation and gave it prominence in his introduction and first chapter.

We are largely programmed by history which puts much emphasis on "last battles" and such moments as Cornwall surrendering his sword, Gen. Lee surrendering at the courthouse (great paintings depicting both), surrender on the USS Missouri, etc and our opinions are informed by these moments and many more.

Thus, I believe, is the general populace's misunderstanding of the Global War on Terror, Iraq and, to some extent, Afghanistan. They expect a USS MIssouri moment when it will look more like the receding waters of the Missouri after a flood: muddy, ugly, damaged, landscape changed, but going out much quieter and with little media attention compared to the initial raging flood and destruction. (Comment this)