According to Clausewitz book 1 chapter 1, On War there are a few purpose of war. Where is for political objectives, war is a mere continuation of policy by other means, Utmost use of force, military objectives and utmost exertion of powers. The idea that Clausewitz outlined to explain were useful until today. There are many advantage that military todays can use from a very talented leader like Clausewitz.
Political Objective The political object, as the original motive of the war, will be the standard for determining the two purposes of the armed forces, as well as the number of attempts to be made . This cannot be done by itself; but it is very much connected with both warring states, because we are concerned with reality, not with mere …show more content…
All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses . That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception …show more content…
If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand, but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better . Every change in this position which is produced by a continuation of the war, should therefore be a change for the worse, at least, in idea. The worst position in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely disarmed. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of war, he must either be positively disarmed or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it according to probability. From this it follows that the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, whichever we call it, must always be the aim of warfare. Now war is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making war; therefore what we have just said as to the aim of action in war applies to both parties. Here then is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, I have to apprehend that he may defeat me, then I shall
Political Objective The political object, as the original motive of the war, will be the standard for determining the two purposes of the armed forces, as well as the number of attempts to be made . This cannot be done by itself; but it is very much connected with both warring states, because we are concerned with reality, not with mere …show more content…
All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to war relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses . That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the art of war in general and the commander in each particular case may demand, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them for the political view is the object, war is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception …show more content…
If our opponent is to be made to comply with our will, we must place him in a situation which is more oppressive to him than the sacrifice which we demand, but the disadvantages of this position must naturally not be of a transitory nature, at least in appearance, otherwise the enemy, instead of yielding, will hold out, in the prospect of a change for the better . Every change in this position which is produced by a continuation of the war, should therefore be a change for the worse, at least, in idea. The worst position in which a belligerent can be placed is that of being completely disarmed. If, therefore, the enemy is to be reduced to submission by an act of war, he must either be positively disarmed or placed in such a position that he is threatened with it according to probability. From this it follows that the disarming or overthrow of the enemy, whichever we call it, must always be the aim of warfare. Now war is always the shock of two hostile bodies in collision, not the action of a living power upon an inanimate mass, because an absolute state of endurance would not be making war; therefore what we have just said as to the aim of action in war applies to both parties. Here then is another case of reciprocal action. As long as the enemy is not defeated, I have to apprehend that he may defeat me, then I shall