|
In: Australian Army Journal, Volume VII Number 1, p.165-172
Brigadier David Coghlan
Abstract
Although fraught with difficulty, predictions of the exercise of power, and therefore the basis of the nature
and conduct of warfare in the twenty-first century, can be found in two general schools of thought: those who believe that
there has been, in the wake of the end of the Cold War, a discontinuity and accompanying paradigm shift in the conduct of
international relations; and those who believe claims of such a shift are overstated, and that a realist approach will remain
the dominant paradigm for the foreseeable future. This article will assess these schools of thought and then advocate that
Carl von Clausewitz is the strategist best suited to the nature and conduct of warfare in the twenty-first century.
JLJ - A member of the Clausewitz fan club writes a fan letter...
|
|
p.168 Clausewitz believed that theories
need to be constantly reviewed: he would probably support the criticism of his grammar but would have been
far more sceptical of those who questioned his logic based on what may happen in the future. Despite such criticisms,
Clausewitz’s theory of war has no credible rival or competitor.
p.170 there are no rivals to Clausewitz. He is the only theorist
that provides us with the what, why and, to a lesser extent, the how of
war in a comprehensive and cogent general theory. This does not mean that Clausewitz is the one-stop shop for strategy
for the twenty-first century—the prudent practitioner, for each strategic dilemma presented, must weave together
threads from throughout the school of strategic thought to come up with the best solution. However, Clausewitz is an essential
part of any such consideration.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
