Ever since evolution, man-kind has been moving hand in hand with war. Just like people, war has evolved too and never stayed the same over a period of time. Wars, such as the ones fought by the Vikings or Barbarians, and the wars of the Roman Empire already revealed elaborate tactics (infamous squares formed by soldiers with their shields), while the Napoleonic wars introduced new elements like new weapons, mass army, professional soldiers, and so on. However, the one thing they all clearly had in common was the battlefields. No war could be fought without soldiers and a battlefield. However, this rule may not be applied on the modern wars of our times. An example is the Cold War which was not based on physical war, as the armed forces never had direct contact (except through client states). The same can be said of today's War on Terror, referring to the numerous suicide bombings. In this paper, I will attempt to explain, to what extent Clausewitz's concepts of war may or may not be applied to this particular war.
[...] Police are trying to find and break up these cells but they are not easy to trace. The Terrorists, thence, manage being a constant threat and maintaining transparency towards their enemy. However there are certain disadvantages such as the lack of a professional military leadership and perhaps a H.Q. As for the West, one might first think that they definitely have the most advantages because of their organised forces, especially because several countries are working together (U.S., Spain, G.B., and Denmark), which gives them a mass-army. [...]
[...] To conclude I believe that Clausewitz concepts are not congruent with today's war on terror, because as already mentioned in the introduction, war never seizes to evolve. Therefore his three benchmarks are timeworn, as the genius in the West's war on terror is hindered by firstly being an alliance (therefore having several) of states and state-heads and secondly from a realist point of view it is nowadays the governments which conduct war rather than the military. On the other hand, the terrorist' genius may still exist as their military forces are constructed on a more primitive foundation. [...]
[...] They have the capacity of striking at any time, any place and it is very hard for the attacked to identify them before they explode which gives them the element of 'surprise' as opposed to their enemy, as well as to choose the “battle field”, hence, their target. Here Clausewitz's opinion on surprise does not seem to match with our modern perspective about the effect of a suicide-bombing, he believes because something is a surprise it is easier to execute, however ' . [...]
[...] As a whole, mobility and flexibility could be seen as their only form of defence. The more militarily and security-like sophisticated West however clearly has better means to defend their countries. They are able to control the entries of potential threats and neutralise them immediately. Furthermore they probably are better qualified in tracing the sites of the cells and their members. Western countries have a great economical advantage, considering the fact that they have the possibility of imposing sanctions on 'terrorist-supportive' countries as a counter-active measure. [...]
[...] This is important insofar as it breaks the morale of the offended and causes panic among the population which may lead to temporary chaos. Additionally it shows a certain ruthlessness, which Clausewitz would call 'boldness' , ' . this noble impulse, with which the human soul raises itself above the most formidable dangers . ' , as he characterises it. A terrifying example is that they even recruit women and children to pursue their goals. This 'boldness' proves the Terrorists are not scared of using any of their forces by any means, enabling them to scare off their enemy and increase its friction. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
