Bassford’s Dynamic Trinitarianism, Part II.
The same might be said that litigation is the instrument of the courtroom or justice, but I am less sure here. Continental legal traditions and assumptions are sometimes very different from the Anglo-American legal systems based more upon common law and the evolution of judicial independence from the executive. And unfortunately, early 19th century Prussian royal courts are a subject beyond my competence. In any event, the adversarial and zero sum nature of litigation carries through in Clausewitz’s analogy.
In regard to Politik, I think Bassford has done an excellent job teasing out the ambiguities of a German word that does not translate or transliterate precisely into an English equivalent. He offers the reader a method for sensibly discerning when to use “politics” or “policy” in interpreting Clausewitz’s text and reasonably assumes that Clausewitz expected the reader to infer the correct meaning from the surrounding context. That’s how most of us write when dealing with multi-layered, abstract topics – we sacrifice exact clarity for useful brevity and expect (or hope) the audience will intuitively grasp the right nuance in our line of reasoning.
I am also intrigued by Bassford’s diagram. The representation of internal political dynamics is very useful but I am curious how he would weave a visual representation of strategy flowing from policy or (more accurately, policies) and strategy’s relationship with politics, beyond being subsumed. Many a potential strategy is stillborn in the tumult of bureaucratic-military politics, never mind the larger societal kind.
As complex as the text of On War sometimes seems, it really was a brilliant simplification by Clausewitz of the dynamics mediating conflict and war.
Page 4 of 4 | Previous page
seydlitz89:
September 24th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Hi Zen-
In regards to “trade” or “markets” I think this more Bassford’s comparison than Clausewitz’s. For that it works well enough, war can be a political instrument as the market can be an instrument of trade. Clausewitz uses the term Wechselhandel only once in On War and there to make a very specific point:
.
Die Waffenentscheidung ist für alle großen und kleinen Operationen des Krieges, was die bare Zahlung für den Wechselhandel ist; wie entfernt diese Beziehungen auch sein, wie selten die Realisationen eintreten mögen, ganz können sie niemals fehlen.
.
Paret/Howard translate this as:
.
The decision by arms is for all major and minor operations in war what cash payment is in commerce. Regardless how complex the relationship between the two parties, regardless how rarely settlements actually occur, they can never be entirely absent. Chapter 2, Book I
.
So the comparison is between cash payment in trade compared to a decision by arms in strategy. Clasuewitz’s point is that to conduct successful military operations one has to be willing to fight, to engage in combat and if the opportunity presents itself, to engage decisively in order to achieve the military aim. Just as in trade, without cash payment, without the exchange, there is no commerce. All the bargaining and maneuvering leads to nowhere. One side as to have the ability and willingness to put the money on the table and the other has to be able to provide the goods, otherwise it’s all just playacting . . . From this perspective the analogy fits well imo.
.
I would add that this chapter is Clausewitz’s most sustained treatment of his concept of strategy, that is the linking of purpose and means.
Madhu:
September 24th, 2012 at 2:09 pm
Nice and educational series, Zen.
Daniel McIntosh:
September 24th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Thank you for this. I’m off to see the whole paper.
J. Scott Shipman:
September 24th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Hi Zen,
.
Until reading this, I had not considered the fractal implications of policy, but his thinking seems right.
zen:
September 25th, 2012 at 3:34 am
Thanks guys!
.
Hi Seydlitz’
.
You wrote:
.
” So the comparison is between cash payment in trade compared to a decision by arms in strategy. Clasuewitz’s point is that to conduct successful military operations one has to be willing to fight, to engage in combat and if the opportunity presents itself, to engage decisively in order to achieve the military aim. Just as in trade, without cash payment, without the exchange, there is no commerce. All the bargaining and maneuvering leads to nowhere. One side as to have the ability and willingness to put the money on the table and the other has to be able to provide the goods, otherwise it’s all just playacting . . . From this perspective the analogy fits well imo.”
.
So “market and trade” in your view is better understood as pointing to the moment of “transaction” (i.e. engagement, interaction, acceptance of risk or cost or potential loss/gain) than as a tool or instrumentality?
seydlitz89:
September 25th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Yes, zen, that was how Clausewitz used the term “Wechselhandel” in On War. The comparison was of decision by arms in military strategy to cash payment in trade. I read the comparison with instrumentality as Bassford’s comparison, not Clausewitz’s, and it works as well.
If you are interested in delving more into this Clausewitzian concept, I would refer to Anders Palmgren’s “Clausewitz’s Interweaving of Krieg and Politik” in Clausewitz: The State and War. Sorry no link. :-(>