Position paper iraq war and just war theory essay

In addition to this paper, the DTD has also developed more detailed "focus" papers that share insights and best practices for various specific challenges such as mission command and cross-domain synergy, assessments, CCIR development and reporting, and lethal and nonlethal integration observed at joint headquarters. All of these papers are unclassified for broad accessibility. Perspectives on Changing National Security Institutions local copyby DiBella, in Joint Force Quarterly, 2nd quarter The question remains as to what images will best fit national security organizations in an age that contains both evolving asymmetric threats and the potential for traditional threats. Do we shift from a machine to a network or do we alter the properties of the machine?

War Plans To be understood, On War really has to be approached as a whole, but the intelligent reader needs to keep in mind that various sections reflect different stages in Clausewitz's intellectual and theoretical evolution. Books One, Two, and Eight are generally considered the most important and the most nearly "finished" especially Book Onewhile older parts sometimes fail to connect with Clausewitz's most mature ideas.

Automatic Bibliography Maker

Some sections are often left out of abridged versions, especially Books Five, Six, and Seven, allegedly because they are tactical in nature and thus obsolete. This sometimes leads to serious misunderstandings of Clausewitz's arguments, for it is precisely in these books that he works out the practical implications of his ideas.

For those who prefer to paint Clausewitz as the "apostle of the offensive," it is especially convenient to leave out Book Six, "Defense"—by far the largest, which demonstrated Clausewitz's controversial conviction that defense is inherently the stronger form of war.

One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation.

For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of Politik," while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale.

This synthesis resolves the deficiencies of the two earlier bald statements, indicating that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. Rather, it is a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation on all sides.

Identifying precisely who was to benefit from reading On War, and precisely how, are perplexing questions. Clausewitz's practical purpose in writing included providing "military analysts" with a clear conceptual scheme for understanding war, in hopes of improving both its actual conduct and the literature discussing it.

He hoped that such an understanding would improve the judgement of military commanders, but he also believed that "military genius" was more a matter of character, personality, and temperament than of intellect.

Perhaps because of his awareness of his own character, he felt that intellectuals generally made poor commanders. Only a self-conscious intellectual, however, was likely to wrestle with a book like On War. One of the deepest explorations of Clausewitz's intentions is provided by historian Jon Sumida in his Decoding Clausewitz: University Press of Kansas, Sumida's interpretation is discussed below under the heading "Clausewitz on History and Military History.

Sumida asks whether it was Clausewitz's goal to provide a phenomenology of war—that is to say, a description of the essential nature of armed conflict—or to suggest some other route to understanding the problem.

These are important distinctions; Sumida emphasizes the latter. But Clausewitz was an eclectic thinker who sought to integrate many diverse aspects of the problem, and it is difficult in practice to separate the two goals.

On War certainly was not intended to provide a practical "cookbook" for commanders in the field.

That approach is common in military doctrinal writing, and Clausewitz the practical soldier had himself written and taught doctrine during the Napoleonic Wars. But it was alien to Clausewitz's concept of military theory.Intro duction.

Blog Archive

Thomas Kuhn coined the modern definition of the word “paradigm” in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, published in A paradigm, according to Kuhn's definition, is a conceptual model that explains a set of scientific observations, which creates a framework to fit the observations.

The Online Writing Lab (OWL) at Purdue University houses writing resources and instructional material, and we provide these as a free service of the Writing Lab at Purdue.

Future Warfare: Rethinking the Principles of War - project by the Office of Force Transformation (OFT). Have the Principles of War changed? Some think it is an interesting question, and to that end we have put together a team to examine this subject.

🔥Citing and more!

Military Theory of War, Warfare Theory, Principles of War, Military Strategy, Theories, Theorists

Add citations directly into your paper, Check for unintentional plagiarism and check for writing mistakes. The War Horse is an award-winning nonprofit newsroom focused on the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.

Just war theory (Latin: jus bellum iustum) is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, Showing the Catholic view in three points, including John Paul II's position concerning war.

Blattberg, Charles. Taking War Seriously. A critique of just war theory.