Clausewitz's Argument Analysis

To answer the DQ, we must review Clausewitz’s doctrine of ‘War Termination’ before we are able to compare Dr. Fred Charles Ikle’s argument. Let’s recap on Clausewitz’s classical theory on the modern terminology of “War Termination”. Clausewitz clearly explained the importance of the political role to establish peace between two states after a physical conflict. Clausewitz defines 'war' as a "true political instrument", "a means" to achieve the political objective. ‘War’ in itself, is not the political ‘goal’. According to Clausewitz, it is critical to have a clear political objective before engaging in ‘War’. It’s also equally important for the governments “continuation of policy” to incorporate political objective to include goals which …show more content…
"In a war where the enemy's forces invade the homeland, any government that tries to make peace with the enemy while facing military defeat will almost inevitably come apart at the seams." Which means that there will be removal of the ‘old’ political leaders, and replaced its leadership and domestic support. However, there will still be those that will not want to accept defeat. Those, referred to as the ‘Hawks’ by Ikle (not ‘wolverines’), favored prolonging or escalating the war to acquire “"peace with honor" instead of the settlement that is about to be obtained”. Ultimately, when the fighting draws to an end, one of the sides is going to need to change their ‘goals’.

Now Ikle goes beyond stating the importance for the government having a final game plan (war termination), but identify that it’s “extraordinarily difficult” for the government to determine the end game. Therefore, he goes into strategies for politicians for such a short fall. He calls out the pits of "the civilian and military leaders in deciding how to end the war cannot have a frank debate on how to abolish each other." He also mentions that modern governments fail to acknowledge or account for uncertainties, making key decisions with