The Art of War
, or the Bloody Business of Humanity
The scent of rain on a London street, a worn copy of Clausewitz open on the table, and the distant wail of a siren slicing through the city's hum. It's a fitting backdrop, perhaps, for wrestling with the fundamental question Carl von Clausewitz posed in Book Two, Chapter Three of On War: what, truly, is this beast we call conflict? Is it merely another subject to be categorised, boxed, and labelled as ‘art’ or ‘science’? Or is it something far more primal, more deeply woven into the fabric of our existence?
Clausewitz, that old German bastard, saw through the flimsy definitions of his contemporaries. He rejected the neat pigeonholes, the academic desire to tame the unruly nature of war with facile classifications. Forget the sterile confines of "science," where knowledge is pure and predictable, like the immutable laws of mathematics. War, he argued, is no such thing. It's a murky, unpredictable affair, steeped in the clash of human wills, a swirling vortex of uncertainty where the best-laid plans often dissolve into bloody chaos.
Beyond the Workbench: Why War Isn't a Mechanical Art
Nor could it be comfortably tucked into the 'art' compartment, at least not in the conventional sense. An 'art' like architecture or engineering, while requiring skill and creativity, operates on inert objects. A stonemason doesn't expect his granite to hit back. Even the so-called 'fine arts,' which might play upon human emotions, still deal with responses that are, ultimately, passive and predictable.
But war… war is different. "The will," Clausewitz observed with the blunt clarity of a man who'd seen too much of it, "is directed at an animate object that reacts." The enemy isn't a problem to be solved on a blueprint; he's a living, breathing, thinking, and most importantly, resisting force. This isn't about sculpting marble or composing a sonata; it's about breaking another man's will, often by breaking his body. And don't even get him started on calling it a 'craft' – that suggests a simpler, more rigid set of rules, utterly incapable of encompassing the brutal dynamism of combat.
War: The Bloody Handshake of Politics
So, if not art and not science, then what the hell is it? Clausewitz's answer, initially understated yet profoundly revolutionary, cuts to the chase: War is an act of human intercourse. It's a brutal extension of how individuals and groups interact, a commerce of violence, if you will, where the currency is blood and suffering. More than that, he stated, it is inherently political.
This is the kernel of his enduring legacy, a truth that echoes down to every modern conflict: "War is a clash between major interests, which is resolved by bloodshed – that is the only way in which it differs from other conflicts." And with a grim finality, he declared, "Politics is the womb in which war develops."
Think about that for a moment. The political landscape, the underlying grievances, ambitions, and power struggles, these are not just the reasons for war; they are the very DNA of it. Long before the first bullet flies, the political decisions, the diplomatic failures, and the national aspirations are shaping the conflict. They dictate its scope, its savagery, its objectives. To pretend war exists in a vacuum, separate from the messy, often corrupted world of politics, is a fool's errand. It's like trying to understand the London fog without acknowledging the damp English air.
The Unavoidable Truth: Rules Built on Rubble
This fundamental understanding — that war is a reactive, interactive, and deeply political act — makes a mockery of any attempt to impose rigid, 'scientific' rules upon it. The neat formulas that might govern a construction project or a chemical reaction simply don't hold up when confronted with a thinking adversary who has his own agenda, his own fears, and his own goddamn gun. Those rules, Clausewitz might have grumbled, work only for things that don't fight back.
Yet, this isn't to say that war is utterly unknowable, a chaotic maelstrom beyond comprehension. Far from it. Clausewitz, ever the pragmatist, believed that within this unique human activity, there are patterns, tendencies, and underlying dynamics that can be discerned. This, he argued, is the proper role of theory: not to offer simplistic prescriptions or 'how-to' guides, but to illuminate, to reveal the internal workings, to make the complex intelligible. Theory, in his view, is the torch that exposes the shadows, even if it cannot eliminate the fog of war entirely.
So, as the last remnants of the day's light fade outside, and the city settles into its familiar rhythm, one thing becomes chillingly clear. Clausewitz, with his blunt refusal to sanitise or simplify, has done us an invaluable service. He stripped away the comforting illusions, the tidy labels, and presented war for what it is: a distinctly human, deeply political, and fundamentally bloody enterprise. And in doing so, he showed us that the easy answers from other fields are worse than useless here. This, my friends, is a different kind of fight.
Citations for this Article:
Clausewitz, Carl von. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret. Princeton University Press, 1976. (Specifically, Book Two, Chapter Three).
Event Portfolio
Street Portfolio