War as a System: A Three-Stage Model for the Development of Clausewitz’s Thinking on Military Conflict and Its Constraints

Abstract

This article presents a new model for the development of Carl von Clausewitz’s thinking on the factors that constrain warfare. The model posits three stages in his thinking that are determined by two system theoretic dimensions. The three stages are friction as a constraint on the effectiveness of the execution of military plans on paper, suspension as a constraint on the intensity of military action and political objectives as a constraint on military objectives. The two dimensions consist of an interactive perspective in the form of causal feedback loops and a holistic perspective in the form of a political system that forms the context of the military subsystem.

Key Words:

• Clausewitz
• On War
• Constraints on Warfare
• Friction
• Interaction
• Feedback Loops
• Holism

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Simona Brolsma, Paul Donker, Michiel Wielema and three anonymous referees for their excellent remarks.

Notes

¹ The German edition used here is Carl von Clausewitz, Vom Kriege, Werner Hahlweg (ed.) (Bonn: F. Dümmler 1973, 18th ed.) (=VK); translation: Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret (ed. and transl.) (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 1984) (=OW); other translations are by me.

² For the system theoretic dimensions, see also Azar Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2001), 221–3 and Alan Beyerchen, ‘Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War’, International Security 17 (1992–93), 67, but cf. Paul A. Roth and Thomas A. Ryckman, ‘Chaos, Clio, and Scientific Illusions of Understanding’, History and Theory 34 (1995), 30–44 and Terence M. Holmes, ‘Planning versus Chaos in Clausewitz’s On War’, The Journal of Strategic Studies 30 (2007), 130. While Beyerchen is most interested in the role of non-linearity, complexity and chaos in the work of Clausewitz, the focus of present article is on constraints on warfare. Finally, Rasmus Beckmann, Clausewitz trifft Luhmann. Eine systemtheoretische Interpretation von Clausewitz’ Hundlungstheorie (Wiesbaden: Springer 2011) uses system theory to analyse Clausewitz, but is not primarily interested in the development of his thinking on constraints on warfare.

³ Eugenio Diniz and Domício Proença Júnior, ‘A Criterion for Settling Inconsistencies in Clausewitz’s On War’, The Journal of Strategic Studies (2012), 17–22. The authors present the following sequence, with each group of texts (book, chapter) before a semicolon taking precedence over the group that is mentioned next, and precedence implying in most but not all cases a later composition than the group that is mentioned next (i.e. Clausewitz probably wrote I. 3–8 first and I. 1 last): I. 1; I. 2; VIII, VII, VI. 27–30; VI. 1–26; II. 1, II. 2, II. 5, II. 6; II. 1, II. 2, II. 5, II. 6; II. 3, II. 4, III-V; I. 3–8 (VIII, VII, VI. 27–30 in that specific order). See also 19 n. 89. Cf. Walter Malmsten Schering, Wehrphilosophie (Leipzig: J. A. Barth 1939) 250–5; Raymond Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz (Paris: Gallimard 1976), Vol. 1, 96–107, 177–8, 217 n. 1, 238; Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 257–65.

⁴ ‘Leitfaden’ 508, in VK, 1169: ‘die Verwendung der Streitkräfte im Gefecht aus ihrer Natur selbst’. The ‘Leitfaden’ was included by Marie von Clausewitz in Vol. 3 of Vom Kriege (Berlin: F. Dümmler 1834), 281–6 and by Hahlweg in VK, 1103–80. The ‘Leitfaden’ may be one of the products of Clausewitz’s ‘Forschungen und Bestrebungen’ following his appointment as teacher at the General War College and tutor to the Crown Prince in 1810; see Marie von Clausewitz, ‘Vorrede’ to VK, 174.

⁵ Carl von Clausewitz, ‘Strategie aus dem Jahre 1808’, in Werner Hahlweg (ed.), Verstreute kleine Schriften (Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag 1979), 46–9.

⁶ VK III. 2, 355/OW, 183. See also VK III. 6, 370/OW, 192, and VK III. 10, 387/OW, 203.

⁷ VK IV. 5, 436/OW, 236.

⁸ VK V. 1, 499/OW, 279. See also VK V. 5, 518/OW, 292.

⁹ VK II. 2, 288/OW, 138. See also VK II. 1, 269/OW, 127 and VK II. 2, 283/OW, 136.

¹⁰ VK VI. 7, 645/OW, 377.

¹¹ VK VI. 27, 807/OW, 484. See also VK VI. 27, 808/OW, 484–5; VK VII. 1, 869/OW, 523; VK VIII. 1, 949/OW, 577; Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz 1, 187; Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 237.

¹² Carl von Clausewitz, Die wichtigsten Grundsätze des Kriegführens zur Ergänzung meines Unterrichts bei Sr. königlichen Hoheit dem Kronprinzen, in VK, 1047–86; see also Peter Paret, Clausewitz and the State. The Man, His Theories and His Times (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press 2007), 202; Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 187 n. 52 and Barry D. Watts, Clausewitzian Friction and Future War (Washington DC: Institute for National Strategic Studies 2004), 5–8.

¹³ Marie von Clausewitz, ‘Vorrede’ to VK, 174/OW, 66.

¹⁴ Carl von Clausewitz, ‘Strategie aus dem Jahre 1804’ in Werner Hahlweg (ed.) Verstreute kleine Schriften, 3–45; see also Eberhard Kessel, ‘Zur Genesis der modernen Kriegslehre. Die Entstehungsgeschichte von Clausewitz’ Buch “Vom Kriege”’, Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau 3 (1953), 408–9 and Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 187 n. 52.

¹⁵ Quoted in Karl Schwartz, Leben des Generals Carl von Clausewitz und der Frau Marie von Clausewitz geb. Gräfin von Brühl (Berlin: F. Dümmler 1878) 1, 224–5.

¹⁶ See Carl von Clausewitz, ‘Friktion im Kriege’ in ‘Niederschriften des Werkes “Vom Kriege”’, in Werner Hahlweg (ed.), Schriften – Aufsätze – Studien – Briefe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1990) II. 1, 639–41.

¹⁷ VK I. 7, 262/OW, 119. Cf. Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz 1, 200.

¹⁸ VK I. 7, 261–2/OW, 119. See also VK I. 6, 259/OW, 117 and Clifford J. Rogers, ‘Clausewitz, Genius, and the Rules’, The Journal of Military History 66 (2002), 1175.

¹⁹ VK III. 16, 409/OW, 218.

²⁰ VK III. 16, 408/OW, 217.

²¹ Ibid.

²² Ibid.

²³ Ibid.

²⁴ VK III. 16, 409/OW, 217–8.

²⁵ Clausewitz, Schriften II. 1, 248–55; see also Kessel, ‘Zur Genesis’, 413–4.

²⁶ VK I. 1. 17, 205/OW, 84.

²⁷ See Kurt A. Richardson, ‘Systems and Complexity: Part 1’, E:CO 6 (2004), 76–7; Robert Jervis, ‘Complex Systems: The Role of Interactions’, in David S. Alberts and Thomas J. Czerwinski (eds), Complexity, Global Politics, and National Security (Washington DC: National Defense University 1997), 20; Beyerchen, ‘Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the Unpredictability of War’, 67.

²⁸ VK I. 1. 18, 206/OW, 85.

²⁹ VK I. 1. 17, 205/OW, 84.

³⁰ Peter Wellstead and Mark Readman, ‘Engine Speed Control’, 1–2, 2014, <http://www.control-systems-principles.co.uk/whitepapers/engine-speed-control.pdf>.

³¹ VK III. 18, 415/OW, 221–2. Cf. VK VII. 16, 908/OW, 548.

³² VK I. 1. 19, 207/OW, 85.

³³ VK VII. 5, 639/OW, 528. See also VK III. 17, 412/OW, 220 and Kessel, ‘Zur Genesis’, 407–8.

³⁴ VK III. 17, 412/OW, 220.

³⁵ IV. 11, 470/ OW, 260. See also VK V. 9, 548–9/OW, 313.

³⁶ VK VI. 28, 813/OW, 488.

³⁷ VK VI. 28, 813/OW, 488.

³⁸ VK VI. 28, 813/OW, 488–9.

³⁹ VK VI. 30, 858/OW 516. See also Kessel, ‘Zur Genesis’, 412 and Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 224–8.

⁴⁰ See also Paret, Clausewitz and the State. The Man, His Theories and His Times, 90.

⁴¹ VK VIII. 2, 953/OW, 579–80.

⁴² VK VIII. 3B, 960/OW, 585. See also VK VIII. 3B, 962/OW, 586 and VK VIII. 6B, 990/OW, 605.

⁴³ VK VIII. 3B, 968–9/OW, 590–1. See also VK VIII. 6B, 991/OW, 606 and VK VIII. 6B, 993/OW, 607.

⁴⁴ VK VIII. 3B, 962-974/OW, 586–94.

⁴⁵ VK I. 1. i., 191/OW, 75.

⁴⁶ VK I. 1. 3, 192–3/OW, 75–6.

⁴⁷ VK I. 1. 4, 194–5/OW, 77.

⁴⁸ VK I. 1. 5, 195/OW, 77. Cf. Andreas Herberg-Rothe, Clausewitz’s Puzzle. The Political Theory of War (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2007), 46–52.

⁴⁹ VK I. 1. 6, 195–6/OW, 78.

⁵⁰ VK I. 1. 7, 196–7/OW, 78.

⁵¹ VK I. 1. 8, 199/OW, 80.

⁵² See also Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz 1, 111 and Herberg-Rothe, Clausewitz’s Puzzle, 52–8.

⁵³ VK I. 1. 11, 200/OW, 80.

⁵⁴ VK I. 1. 24, 210/OW, 87.

⁵⁵ VK I. 1. 2, 192. Not in OW.

⁵⁶ VK I. 1. 11, 201/OW, 81.

⁵⁷ VK I. 1. 24, 210/OW, 88. See also VK I. 1. 25, 211/OW, 87–8.

⁵⁸ VK I. 1. 11, 201/OW, 81.

⁵⁹ See also VK VIII. 2, 952-953/OW, 579.

⁶⁰ VK III. 19, 409/OW, 218.

⁶¹ VK I. 1. 12, 201–2/OW, 81–2.

⁶² OW, 221 gives ‘new opposing forces’.

⁶³ VK III. 18, 415. See also the continued use of ‘natürliche Friktion’ when Clausewitz introduces his account of suspension in ‘Ueber das Fortschreiten’, 250.

⁶⁴ See above, note 2.

⁶⁵ Diniz, ‘A Criterion for Settling Inconsistencies in Clausewitz’s On War’, 21

⁶⁶ VK I. 1. 17, 205/OW, 84, italics by me.

⁶⁷ VK I. 1. 18, 206/OW, 84.

⁶⁸ Cf. Diniz, ‘A Criterion for Settling Inconsistencies in Clausewitz’s On War’, 21–2.

⁶⁹ VK, 179–81, OW, 69.

⁷⁰ Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 219–20.

⁷¹ Ibid., 232.

⁷² Ibid., 234.

⁷³ Ibid., 232.

⁷⁴ Ibid., 237, 238.

⁷⁵ See Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 233–6; Hahlweg, ‘Das Clausewitzbild einst und jetzt’ in VK, 16 and Andrée Türpe, ‘Dialektisches Denken in den Auffassungen von Clausewitz’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 28 (1980), 709–18.

⁷⁶ Paret, Clausewitz and the State. The Man, His Theories and His Times, 84, n. 13, see also 150.

⁷⁷ Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz 1, 364.

⁷⁸ Cf. Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 232 and 234.

⁷⁹ See J.G.C.C. Kiesewetter, Versuch einer faßlichen Darstellung der wichtigsten Wahrheiten der kritischen Philosophie (Berlin: W. Oehmigke 1803), 142–3; Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz 1, 368–71; see also Gat, A History of Military Thought from the Enlightenment to the Cold War, 177 n. 11.

⁸⁰ Conversely, cf. Aron, Penser la guerre, Clausewitz 1, 374: ‘Tous les germes de ce que l’on peut appeler la dialectique clausewitzienne se trouvent dans les textes antérieurs au Traité’.

⁸¹ Although this is not conclusive evidence for or against anything, it can yet be noted that his correspondence in these two years with Gneisenau, who had earlier been the recipient of Clausewitz’s acute essay ‘On the Progression’, does not show the least sign of intellectual crisis. Actually, this correspondence in 1826–27 provides us with remarkable little intellectual insights at all; Clausewitz’s attention seems limited to such topics as an attack of chest spasms of his mother-in-law. See letter from 15 July 1827, in Clausewitz, Schriften II. 1, 524.

⁸² VK VIII. 6B, 992/OW, 606. See also VK VIII. 6B, 990/OW, 605.

⁸³ VK, 180/OW, 70.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Paul Schuurman

Paul Schuurman works as a lecturer in the history of philosophy at the Erasmus University Rotterdam. He has published on the logic, metaphysics and epistemology of René Descartes and John Locke and, more recently, on the philosophy of war of François Fénelon (1651–1715) and Montesquieu (1689–1755).