On War

“War is nothing but a duel on an extensive scale. If we would conceive as a unit the countless number of duels which make up a war, we shall do so best by supposing to ourselves two wrestlers. Each strives by physical force to compel the other to submit to his will: his first object is to throw his adversary, and thus to render him incapable of further resistance. War therefore is an act of violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.”

The author defines war as a series of violent acts between two sides. The purpose of each side is to overpower the other and eliminate the possibility of additional resistance. When the latter occurs, the vanquished side is forced to submit to the victor. Here, the author reduces war to the simplest definition: The means by which the opponent is made to submit are the tactics, whereas the will of the victor is the overarching goal and is part of the strategy.

”Frequent periods of inaction in war remove it further from the absolute, and make it still more a calculation of probabilities.”

War is punctuated by combat, with alternating periods of troop inaction highlighting the existence of uncertainties and probabilities. Here, Clausewitz underscores one of the many reasons why the generalizations of war theory have limits. His focus on pauses between combat is also significant because it was generally absent from previous war theory.

“War is a mere continuation of policy by other means. We see, therefore, that war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.”

Clausewitz highlights the strategic role of war in attaining a general political goal. In this framework, war is merely an instrument, when all other instruments may have been exhausted. In this way, combat is directly linked to foreign policy.