Carl von Clausewitz and Sun Tzu, unlike Antoine-Henri Jomini, thought of military leaders as artists, not scientists. The battlefield was always evolving and the enemy does not always react the same way. A good military leader must have the ability to react to the enemy. Clausewitz wrote:
Today, there is a common saying that the no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, which is consistent with Clausewitz’ and Sun Tzu’s theory. The most effective military leaders are ones with experience, but most importantly have natural talent. Experience is not easily gained, so in today’s military professionals learn through history. Therefore, military leader need to be educated in military history, which will allow them the skills to quickly …show more content…
The concept of “total war” covers three different aspects of war: objectives, resources, and restraint. (8901 Course material, Lesson 1, Module 4, pg. 2). First, the objective in a “total war” is the total subjugation of the enemy, not some lesser goal. (Id.). Second, in a “total war” “a nation seeks to mobilize all of its resources for war.” (Id.). Third, “no restraint on the level of violence applied, and who it is applied against” in a “total war.” (Id.). Wars during the period from 1792 to 1945, are characterized as an age of “total war.” For example, during WWII, the United States wanted a total surrender by the Japanese, spent up to 40% of the national gross domestic product (GDP) on the military, and destroyed civilian cities in Japan. In contrast, during the Vietnam war, the military budget was less than 10% of the GDP1, the United States’ objective was to stop the spread of communism in South Vietnam, and there was limited bombing of the cities of North Vietnam. However, the change in the character of war is the product of political, military, economic, social, and technological factors. (8901 Course material, pg. 1). In WWII, the United States was attacked by Japan and peopled feared Japanese may invade the mainland. The Japanese Navy was affecting United States trade in Asia. In addition, the United States military was small compared to the Japanese, so much more of the national resources were …show more content…
It is dangerous for military leaders to use the current trend of wars to predict a “total war” will not happen again. After the bloodshed of WWI, leaders said it was the war to end all wars, and the world was at war again in less than 30 years. The United States has been a world superpower militarily and economically since WWII. So, the national resources required to maintain the best military in the world is not as great as a percentage of GDP, as in WWII. The United States has not been attacked by a nation state since WWII, so the political and social environments require the military show restraint on the level of violence applied and to limit the number of civilian casualties. The people of the United States would not have allowed the elected government official to use nuclear weapons against North Korean, North Vietnam, Iraq, nor Afghanistan. However, if the United States was attacked in the future with a nuclear weapon by a nation state, the political and social environment would demand the military retaliate with nuclear weapons, killing entire cities of civilians. The enemy has also changed since
Today, there is a common saying that the no battle plan survives contact with the enemy, which is consistent with Clausewitz’ and Sun Tzu’s theory. The most effective military leaders are ones with experience, but most importantly have natural talent. Experience is not easily gained, so in today’s military professionals learn through history. Therefore, military leader need to be educated in military history, which will allow them the skills to quickly …show more content…
The concept of “total war” covers three different aspects of war: objectives, resources, and restraint. (8901 Course material, Lesson 1, Module 4, pg. 2). First, the objective in a “total war” is the total subjugation of the enemy, not some lesser goal. (Id.). Second, in a “total war” “a nation seeks to mobilize all of its resources for war.” (Id.). Third, “no restraint on the level of violence applied, and who it is applied against” in a “total war.” (Id.). Wars during the period from 1792 to 1945, are characterized as an age of “total war.” For example, during WWII, the United States wanted a total surrender by the Japanese, spent up to 40% of the national gross domestic product (GDP) on the military, and destroyed civilian cities in Japan. In contrast, during the Vietnam war, the military budget was less than 10% of the GDP1, the United States’ objective was to stop the spread of communism in South Vietnam, and there was limited bombing of the cities of North Vietnam. However, the change in the character of war is the product of political, military, economic, social, and technological factors. (8901 Course material, pg. 1). In WWII, the United States was attacked by Japan and peopled feared Japanese may invade the mainland. The Japanese Navy was affecting United States trade in Asia. In addition, the United States military was small compared to the Japanese, so much more of the national resources were …show more content…
It is dangerous for military leaders to use the current trend of wars to predict a “total war” will not happen again. After the bloodshed of WWI, leaders said it was the war to end all wars, and the world was at war again in less than 30 years. The United States has been a world superpower militarily and economically since WWII. So, the national resources required to maintain the best military in the world is not as great as a percentage of GDP, as in WWII. The United States has not been attacked by a nation state since WWII, so the political and social environments require the military show restraint on the level of violence applied and to limit the number of civilian casualties. The people of the United States would not have allowed the elected government official to use nuclear weapons against North Korean, North Vietnam, Iraq, nor Afghanistan. However, if the United States was attacked in the future with a nuclear weapon by a nation state, the political and social environment would demand the military retaliate with nuclear weapons, killing entire cities of civilians. The enemy has also changed since