On War: Clausewitz's Strategy

American's national interests have remained constant throughout her short history and rise to prominence - peace, prosperity, and liberty. However, while America's national interests have remained constant, objectives have changed because our leader's challenges and opportunities have changed. In his early 19th century manuscript On War, Clausewitz posited that strategy and war was uncertain, unpredictable, and marked by chance. While sound and consistent political objectives marked by good decision making can make the execution of strategic objectives at all levels of war more achievable, it is impossible to eliminate uncertainty and friction because of countless unforeseeable variables. The more the scale moves from the tactical realm …show more content…
Clausewitz's observation was that, "the higher the rank, the more the problems multiply, reaching their highest point in the supreme commander. At this level, almost all solutions must be left to imaginative intellect." Essentially, it is very hard to train strategists and thus, very hard to make strategy. I would submit that the creation of strategy is influenced by these inevitable and intangible factors that contribute to strategic outcomes. Thus, America has neither always been bad at nor good at strategy; there instead exists both persistent weaknesses and enduring strengths in its strategy. In this paper I will expand on why strategy is so difficult, identify persistent weaknesses, and illuminate enduring strengths woven throughout the history of American …show more content…
Rather, the US ascended into the role as a global superpower because of the enduring strengths intertwined throughout its strategy over the course of its illustrious history. When the US pursues limited objectives that are clearly defined, it meets with greater success. Pursuing limited, unambiguous objectives tends to eliminate the unintended consequences of second and third order effects that are plagued with friction and uncertainty. During WWII, America pursued limited objectives that were clearly defined across two major campaigns in Europe and the Pacific. Specifically, in the case of Europe, the US remained wetted to a strategy of concentration and refused to support Britain's request to pursue the preservation of its Mediterranean imperial life line. Instead, the US remained focused on a cross-channel invasion in an attempt to quell the hostilities in northern Europe, allowing it to shift resources to the Pacific. During the Gulf War, the US was successful because it pursued the clearly defined limited objectives of expelling Iraq from Kuwait, restoring the Kuwaiti government, and resisting the temptation to pursue regime change. When the US uses a complementary strategic approach to the national instruments of power effectively, it tends to experience success. The Cold War is a good example of a strategy that featured economics and the use of soft power to avoid war with the Soviet

Show More

Related Documents: On War: Clausewitz's Strategy

Clauseewitz Essay