War & Peace building notes
Security is a combination of:
- A physical condition, in the sense being able to prevent others from inflicting harm
- And a mental condition, in the sense of confidence that this capacity to prevent other
from inflicting harm is indeed in place
Threats to security may be real- or they may be imagined
Threats to security may be economical, societal, natural etc.
Not all of those things have to do with war (studies)
Definitions of war:
- Carl von Clausewitz:
‘War is merely the continuation of policy by other means’
‘War is, nothing but a duel on a larger scale’
‘War is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will’
- The absence of peace (dangerous because ‘peace’ is the normal state here, while
people go purposively to war, and are really good at it)
- A conflict between or among state and state like entities for political control over
people, territory, or resources
(the how’s are missing, how is war conducted? -> violence)
Correlates of War (COW) project
- Substantial combat, involving organized armed forces that results in a minimum of a
thousand battle-related combatants’ fatalities within a twelve month period.
Hedley Bull: war is organized violence carried on by political units against each other
Three philosophies of war
- Political: war is a game of strategy, war as a rational strategy, with a clear goal at the
end.
- Eschatological: war is a mission, something to strive for, almost holy end (can be
argued that war against terror is eschatological idea, but also for jihad IS, Putin strong
Russia)
- Cataclysmic: something that is inherently evil and cannot be avoided, end of world
idea (rise of nuclear weapons it became kind of true)
Why we (should) study war
- Because we live in dangerous times
- Shift in global politics
- Tail end of a global pandemic
- Multipolar world
- Rising (or re-rising) powers
- Technology – (that upends the balance)
- Return to power politics
We live in place or time, of relatively high peace times. Most people didn’t experience war in
the Netherlands, only some refugees, soldiers, and old people. -> ‘so we don’t study it’ -> a
luxury we cannot afford.
Why should we study war?
We can learn how to fight more efficiently based on past experiences
, Very little of human affairs can be understood without referencing war(s)
Thus the study of war is both instrumental and instructive
People always have been thinking about ending wars for good. Are people meant to fight, is it
inevitable? -> endless debate
- Yes: we are condemned to fight. Either by biology or culture or society, but humanity
is condemned to fight wars
- Hobbes: state of nature is nasty brutish and short, the original state of human kind is a
war of everyone against everyone
- No: humanity is not, we can ban war
- Rousseau: the natural state of mankind is peaceful until societies became organized
there was no war.
Steven Pinker: ‘hunters and gathers had less group violence than when people set down and
property became to emerge -> organization of groups started war’
. Charles Tilly: war made then state, and the state made war
‘War is the only invention that allowed us to construct peaceful societies’
War produced a lot, peace didn’t produce a lot
- Technology: radar, satellite communication technology, GPS, Drones, ARPANET
- SUVs, tampons, instant coffee, duct tape, microwaves – plastic surgery
- Science: statistics, demography, economic data, penicillin
- Society: national health service, women’s rights, abolishment of serfdom
- Fashion: double breasted suits, Burberry trench coats, aviators, bomber jackets
Functions of war:
- Beyond victory, war can be fought to: limit violence, immediate gain, weaking
political position
Lecture 2: A paradoxical Trinity: Carl von Clausewitz on the nature of
war
‘Book of 190 years old, why did only this one survive? Still relevant?’
Who was Carl von Clausewitz?
Prussian officer:
Born 1780 into military family
Already in military at 12
Introverted, solitary, arrogant
1789: French revolution (was a lot of war in this time -> he experienced war)
1801: Military Academy in Berlin (combined experience with reflection and
knowledge)
1806: captured at battle of Jena-Auerstadt against Napoleon -> he got capatured in this
war -> ‘he hated Napoleon for it, but he was also extremely impressed by his
accomplishments’
Napoleonic Warfare
- French Revolution (1789-1799) & Napoleon shaped 19th century warfare
, > 1812: Grande Armee of approx.. 600.000 -> he could do this because of the duty
against their country (military service) -> he benefited from structural changes
> Napoleon changed nature of warfare
> 1490-1790: 9 major battles a year
> 1790-1820: 23 major battles a year
> early 19th century was dominated by war campaigns
> Conscription controversial: duties but no rights?
.> Why did the other countries don’t follow? -> fear of revolution
- Some quotes:
The mentioning of his name alone makes on feel sick (Hans von Seeckt, German
general)
Most Germans of Germans, reading him one constantly has the feeling of being in a
metaphysical fog
Mahdi of mass and mutual massacre; apostle of total war; evil genius of military
thought; directly responsible for carnage of WW1 – Basil Liddel Hart, Britisch
military historian -> consequences for millions!, the book and thoughts would have
influenced the German war thinking
American military analyst: thousands of death in Iraq, because of Clausewitzian ideas.
- Not all bad: there are also good quotes (really polarized opinion)
Clausewitz & the reformers (movie: waterloo)
- Clausewitz: ‘how did Napoleon managed to do that?’
Love-hate relationship with Napoleon
Prussian reforms mirror French military success:
Promotion: merit over birth,
Inspiration: nationalism/duty over ‘cadaver discipline, (Napoleon could inspire people,
but also make them afraid)
Personnel: limited conscription replaces professionals
- 1810: begins on War
- 1812: Clausewitz offers services to Russia to fight Napoleon
- 1813: reformed Prussian army declares war to France
- 1814: reinstated as Colonel
- 1815: fights close to Waterloo
- 1815: return to the war academy, continues on war
- 1827: first draft on war complete; revision begins
- 1831: Clausewitz dies of Cholera (he was not able to finish the book)
- 1832: On War published posthumously & unfinished (first, and last chapter are revised
the rest is not, one author with different ideas, different persons)
Intellectual context of On war
- Influenced by the enlightenment (18th century) and Romanticism (1750-1850)
Rational analysis, clarity, science, ‘laws’ of war VS
Psychological, emotional and intuitive factors, subjectiveness, chaos, chance, friction,
luck (romanticism)
- Dialectic method of presentation: absolute vs limited war, theory vs practice, means vs
ends, offensive vs defensive, reason vs emotion, physical vs moral factors (different,
but also conflicting claims)
‘For Clausewitz war was just a given’
Security is a combination of:
- A physical condition, in the sense being able to prevent others from inflicting harm
- And a mental condition, in the sense of confidence that this capacity to prevent other
from inflicting harm is indeed in place
Threats to security may be real- or they may be imagined
Threats to security may be economical, societal, natural etc.
Not all of those things have to do with war (studies)
Definitions of war:
- Carl von Clausewitz:
‘War is merely the continuation of policy by other means’
‘War is, nothing but a duel on a larger scale’
‘War is an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will’
- The absence of peace (dangerous because ‘peace’ is the normal state here, while
people go purposively to war, and are really good at it)
- A conflict between or among state and state like entities for political control over
people, territory, or resources
(the how’s are missing, how is war conducted? -> violence)
Correlates of War (COW) project
- Substantial combat, involving organized armed forces that results in a minimum of a
thousand battle-related combatants’ fatalities within a twelve month period.
Hedley Bull: war is organized violence carried on by political units against each other
Three philosophies of war
- Political: war is a game of strategy, war as a rational strategy, with a clear goal at the
end.
- Eschatological: war is a mission, something to strive for, almost holy end (can be
argued that war against terror is eschatological idea, but also for jihad IS, Putin strong
Russia)
- Cataclysmic: something that is inherently evil and cannot be avoided, end of world
idea (rise of nuclear weapons it became kind of true)
Why we (should) study war
- Because we live in dangerous times
- Shift in global politics
- Tail end of a global pandemic
- Multipolar world
- Rising (or re-rising) powers
- Technology – (that upends the balance)
- Return to power politics
We live in place or time, of relatively high peace times. Most people didn’t experience war in
the Netherlands, only some refugees, soldiers, and old people. -> ‘so we don’t study it’ -> a
luxury we cannot afford.
Why should we study war?
We can learn how to fight more efficiently based on past experiences
, Very little of human affairs can be understood without referencing war(s)
Thus the study of war is both instrumental and instructive
People always have been thinking about ending wars for good. Are people meant to fight, is it
inevitable? -> endless debate
- Yes: we are condemned to fight. Either by biology or culture or society, but humanity
is condemned to fight wars
- Hobbes: state of nature is nasty brutish and short, the original state of human kind is a
war of everyone against everyone
- No: humanity is not, we can ban war
- Rousseau: the natural state of mankind is peaceful until societies became organized
there was no war.
Steven Pinker: ‘hunters and gathers had less group violence than when people set down and
property became to emerge -> organization of groups started war’
. Charles Tilly: war made then state, and the state made war
‘War is the only invention that allowed us to construct peaceful societies’
War produced a lot, peace didn’t produce a lot
- Technology: radar, satellite communication technology, GPS, Drones, ARPANET
- SUVs, tampons, instant coffee, duct tape, microwaves – plastic surgery
- Science: statistics, demography, economic data, penicillin
- Society: national health service, women’s rights, abolishment of serfdom
- Fashion: double breasted suits, Burberry trench coats, aviators, bomber jackets
Functions of war:
- Beyond victory, war can be fought to: limit violence, immediate gain, weaking
political position
Lecture 2: A paradoxical Trinity: Carl von Clausewitz on the nature of
war
‘Book of 190 years old, why did only this one survive? Still relevant?’
Who was Carl von Clausewitz?
Prussian officer:
Born 1780 into military family
Already in military at 12
Introverted, solitary, arrogant
1789: French revolution (was a lot of war in this time -> he experienced war)
1801: Military Academy in Berlin (combined experience with reflection and
knowledge)
1806: captured at battle of Jena-Auerstadt against Napoleon -> he got capatured in this
war -> ‘he hated Napoleon for it, but he was also extremely impressed by his
accomplishments’
Napoleonic Warfare
- French Revolution (1789-1799) & Napoleon shaped 19th century warfare
, > 1812: Grande Armee of approx.. 600.000 -> he could do this because of the duty
against their country (military service) -> he benefited from structural changes
> Napoleon changed nature of warfare
> 1490-1790: 9 major battles a year
> 1790-1820: 23 major battles a year
> early 19th century was dominated by war campaigns
> Conscription controversial: duties but no rights?
.> Why did the other countries don’t follow? -> fear of revolution
- Some quotes:
The mentioning of his name alone makes on feel sick (Hans von Seeckt, German
general)
Most Germans of Germans, reading him one constantly has the feeling of being in a
metaphysical fog
Mahdi of mass and mutual massacre; apostle of total war; evil genius of military
thought; directly responsible for carnage of WW1 – Basil Liddel Hart, Britisch
military historian -> consequences for millions!, the book and thoughts would have
influenced the German war thinking
American military analyst: thousands of death in Iraq, because of Clausewitzian ideas.
- Not all bad: there are also good quotes (really polarized opinion)
Clausewitz & the reformers (movie: waterloo)
- Clausewitz: ‘how did Napoleon managed to do that?’
Love-hate relationship with Napoleon
Prussian reforms mirror French military success:
Promotion: merit over birth,
Inspiration: nationalism/duty over ‘cadaver discipline, (Napoleon could inspire people,
but also make them afraid)
Personnel: limited conscription replaces professionals
- 1810: begins on War
- 1812: Clausewitz offers services to Russia to fight Napoleon
- 1813: reformed Prussian army declares war to France
- 1814: reinstated as Colonel
- 1815: fights close to Waterloo
- 1815: return to the war academy, continues on war
- 1827: first draft on war complete; revision begins
- 1831: Clausewitz dies of Cholera (he was not able to finish the book)
- 1832: On War published posthumously & unfinished (first, and last chapter are revised
the rest is not, one author with different ideas, different persons)
Intellectual context of On war
- Influenced by the enlightenment (18th century) and Romanticism (1750-1850)
Rational analysis, clarity, science, ‘laws’ of war VS
Psychological, emotional and intuitive factors, subjectiveness, chaos, chance, friction,
luck (romanticism)
- Dialectic method of presentation: absolute vs limited war, theory vs practice, means vs
ends, offensive vs defensive, reason vs emotion, physical vs moral factors (different,
but also conflicting claims)
‘For Clausewitz war was just a given’
