Wednesday, May 18, 2005
THOSE WHO WOULD PLAN OUR EXPEDITION TO SYRACUSE
Further thoughts on the implications of the great Barnett-Kaplan debate.
During the Peloponnesian War, the democratic Athenians faced a determined and powerful enemy in oligarchic Sparta. The Athenians were a great naval power and were secure from Spartan attack safely behind the " the long walls" to Piraeus. Control of the sea meant the advantage of greater mobility and the wealth brought in from trade within the empire and thus Athens held the upper hand, though the war was far from won.
It was at this juncture that the citizens of Athens were convinced to turn away from prosecuting the war against Sparta toward an expedition to conquer far-away Syracuse because, someday, Syracuse might grow strong enough to become the enemy of Athens. With great fanfare, the Expedition was launched and it ended, after ruinous expenditure, in the defeat of mighty Athens. The Syracuse campaign reversed the tide of fortune and gave heart to Sparta, which went on to become a passsable sea power in its own right and defeat the now gravely weakened Athenians.
Today we have those for whom the War on Terror, a complicated and shadowy battle against a rising transnational Islamist insurgency that wishes our destruction, is not enough. Instead they look at Russia, a weakened former foe, struggling against part of the same Islamist insurgency and see not a potential ally but a target of opportunity. Others see China rising and call for a " Cold War II " based on - well - nostalgia for Cold War I. I can't think of a better way to isolate the United States than to drive - actively drive - all the other great powers into an active collusion against our interests while we are engaged in a 4GW war against the Islamist terror networks. Even if such a pessimitic analysis of Russia and China is correct there is something to be said for biding one's time, being subtle and prioritizing objectives.
This isn't a " Clash of Civilizations" or even " The West against the Rest" but a call for " America vs. The World " and it represents a strategic vision on par with invading Russia in winter or starting a land war in Asia. ¶ 7:01 AM
Further thoughts on the implications of the great Barnett-Kaplan debate.
During the Peloponnesian War, the democratic Athenians faced a determined and powerful enemy in oligarchic Sparta. The Athenians were a great naval power and were secure from Spartan attack safely behind the " the long walls" to Piraeus. Control of the sea meant the advantage of greater mobility and the wealth brought in from trade within the empire and thus Athens held the upper hand, though the war was far from won.
It was at this juncture that the citizens of Athens were convinced to turn away from prosecuting the war against Sparta toward an expedition to conquer far-away Syracuse because, someday, Syracuse might grow strong enough to become the enemy of Athens. With great fanfare, the Expedition was launched and it ended, after ruinous expenditure, in the defeat of mighty Athens. The Syracuse campaign reversed the tide of fortune and gave heart to Sparta, which went on to become a passsable sea power in its own right and defeat the now gravely weakened Athenians.
Today we have those for whom the War on Terror, a complicated and shadowy battle against a rising transnational Islamist insurgency that wishes our destruction, is not enough. Instead they look at Russia, a weakened former foe, struggling against part of the same Islamist insurgency and see not a potential ally but a target of opportunity. Others see China rising and call for a " Cold War II " based on - well - nostalgia for Cold War I. I can't think of a better way to isolate the United States than to drive - actively drive - all the other great powers into an active collusion against our interests while we are engaged in a 4GW war against the Islamist terror networks. Even if such a pessimitic analysis of Russia and China is correct there is something to be said for biding one's time, being subtle and prioritizing objectives.
This isn't a " Clash of Civilizations" or even " The West against the Rest" but a call for " America vs. The World " and it represents a strategic vision on par with invading Russia in winter or starting a land war in Asia. ¶ 7:01 AM
Comments:
<< Home
I heard an excellent talk yesterday on America's involvement in small wars. Part of the theme was that we refuse to learn from history, most notably our own, but one of the examples given was of Athens in the Peloponnesian War.
Clausewitz was mentioned a number of times, too, refreshing for me to hear, since I've been wondering since at least the fall of 2002 what had happened to him.
No good answers in the talk on how to keep from (institutionally) forgetting these things, though.
CKR
Clausewitz was mentioned a number of times, too, refreshing for me to hear, since I've been wondering since at least the fall of 2002 what had happened to him.
No good answers in the talk on how to keep from (institutionally) forgetting these things, though.
CKR
# posted by 
: Wednesday, 18 May, 2005
: Wednesday, 18 May, 2005
Hi Cheryl
Ironically, the Peloponnesian War is a useful teaching tool to illustrate a range of problems - not just warfare and politics but morality, philosophy and psychology to name but a few.
I've read Clausewitz though I much prefer the outlook of Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli on issues of strategy. Pundits probably feel, rightly or wrongly, that Clausewitz better fit the era of mass conscription armies better than today's fight between special-ops pros and stateless terrorists.
Oddly enough, my understanding is that during WWII, Clausewitz was more a part of the strategic philosophy of American general officers than of their counterparts on Hitler's general staff
Ironically, the Peloponnesian War is a useful teaching tool to illustrate a range of problems - not just warfare and politics but morality, philosophy and psychology to name but a few.
I've read Clausewitz though I much prefer the outlook of Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli on issues of strategy. Pundits probably feel, rightly or wrongly, that Clausewitz better fit the era of mass conscription armies better than today's fight between special-ops pros and stateless terrorists.
Oddly enough, my understanding is that during WWII, Clausewitz was more a part of the strategic philosophy of American general officers than of their counterparts on Hitler's general staff
Hmmm..."War is the continuation of politics by other means." That's where I started from in 2002.
It's frequently quoted cynically, but if you look at Clausewitz's context, it means that war is the physical means for attaining political objectives. So you need to have definable political objectives for a war, like grabbing territory or resources, or forcing another country to do something else it doesn't like.
It further means that you need to have a political plan for what comes after the war. But that's hard to do if you don't have those definable political objectives.
So "finding weapons of mass destruction and deposing Saddam Hussein" is a definable political objective, if you don't care much about what kind of government follows or if you believe that the right kind of government will miraculously appear among flowers and baklava. "Bringing democracy to the oppressed" is quite a bit more difficult if you look at what history has to offer on the subject, so it would require even more planning.
And there are lots more goodies that Clausewitz has to offer.
CKR
Post a Comment
It's frequently quoted cynically, but if you look at Clausewitz's context, it means that war is the physical means for attaining political objectives. So you need to have definable political objectives for a war, like grabbing territory or resources, or forcing another country to do something else it doesn't like.
It further means that you need to have a political plan for what comes after the war. But that's hard to do if you don't have those definable political objectives.
So "finding weapons of mass destruction and deposing Saddam Hussein" is a definable political objective, if you don't care much about what kind of government follows or if you believe that the right kind of government will miraculously appear among flowers and baklava. "Bringing democracy to the oppressed" is quite a bit more difficult if you look at what history has to offer on the subject, so it would require even more planning.
And there are lots more goodies that Clausewitz has to offer.
CKR
# posted by : Thursday, 19 May, 2005
: Thursday, 19 May, 2005<< Home
