THE THEORY AND THE PRACTICE OF WAR
"Moltke, the most gifted pupil of Clausewitz," "Moltke, who knew
Clausewitz's book well, and often liked to describe him as the
theoretical instructor." As Chaucer would say, "What needeth wordes
more?"
Clausewitz has treated practically every chief branch of strategy
and tactics (except, of course, the present-day developments of
railways, telegraphs, quick-firing guns, smokeless powder, universal
service armies, etc.). The whole of his bulky work "On War" is full
of interesting and sometimes eloquent and almost poetical passages,
of concentrated, pregnant, and far-reaching thoughts on every
subject. Through all these it is, of course, impossible to follow
him in any introduction. One can really do no more than urge all to
read Clausewitz for themselves, to go to the fountain-head, to the
master-work itself. In the short space to which I have restricted
myself, I propose, therefore, to concentrate on a few of his leading
ideas, reluctantly leaving out many others which are really almost just
as good.
THEORY AND PRACTICE
One of the things for which we are most deeply indebted to Clausewitz
is that he has shown us clearly the proper place of theory in relation
to practice. "It should educate the mind of the future leader in
war, or, rather, guide him in his _self-instruction_, but _not_
accompany him on to the battlefield; just as a sensible tutor forms
and enlightens the opening mind of a youth without therefore keeping
him in leading-strings all his life."[8] Again, "In real action most
men are guided by the tact of judgment, which hits the object more or
less accurately, according as they possess more or less genius. This
is the way in which all great generals have acted, and therein partly
lay their greatness and their genius, in that they always hit upon what
was right by this tact. Thus also it will always be in _action_, and
so far this tact is amply sufficient. But when it is a question not of
acting one's self, but of convincing others _in consultation_, then
all depends upon clear conceptions and demonstrations and the inherent
relations; and so little progress has been made in this respect that
most deliberations are merely a contention of words, resting on no
firm basis, and ending either in every one retaining his own opinion,
or in a compromise from mutual considerations of respect, a middle
course really without any value. Clear ideas on these matters are not,
therefore, wholly useless."[9]
How true this is any one will admit who reflects for a moment upon
the great diversity of opinions on almost every subject held in our
army, just because of this want of a central theory common to all. In
the domain of tactics it is evident that this holds good even as in
strategy, for a common central theory of war will produce a more or
less common way of looking at things, from which results more or less
common action towards the attainment of the common object.
REJECTION OF SET AND GEOMETRICAL THEORIES
"It should educate the mind of the future leader in war" is what
Clausewitz demands from a useful theory; but he most expressly and
unreservedly rejects every attempt at a method "by which definite
plans for wars or campaigns are to be given out all ready made as if
from a machine."[10] He mocks at Bülow's including at first in the
one term "base" all sorts of things, like the supply of the army, its
reinforcements and equipments, the security of its communications with
the home country, and lastly the security of its line of retreat, and
then fixing the extent of the base, and finally fixing an angle for the
extent of that base: "And all this was done merely to obtain a pure
geometrical result utterly useless" (Von Caemmerer).
For the same reason Jomini's principle of the Inner Line does not
satisfy him, owing to its mere geometrical nature, although he right
willingly acknowledges "that it rests on a sound foundation, on
the truth that the combat is the only effectual means in war" (Von
Caemmerer). All such attempts at theory seem to him therefore perfectly
useless, "because they strive to work with fixed quantities, while in
war everything is _uncertain_, and all considerations must reckon with
all kinds of variable quantities; because they only consider _material_
objects, while every action in war is saturated with _moral_ forces and
effects; lastly, because they deal only with the action of _one_ party,
while war is a constant reciprocal effect of _both_ parties" (Von
Caemmerer).
"Pity the warrior," says Clausewitz, "who is contented to crawl about
in this beggardom of rules." "Pity the theory which sets itself in
opposition to the mind"[11] (note, the moral forces).
A THEORY TO BE PRACTICALLY USEFUL
Clausewitz insists that a useful theory cannot be more than a thorough
knowledge of military history and "reflection upon all the situations
in which we can be placed in war." "What genius does must be just the
best of all rules, and theory cannot do better than to show just how
and why it is so." "It is an analytical investigation of the subject
which leads to exact knowledge: and if brought to bear on the results
of experience, which in our case would be military history, to a
_thorough_ familiarity with it. If theory investigates the subjects
which constitute war; if it separates more distinctly that which at
first sight seems amalgamated; if it explains fully the properties of
the means; if it shows their probable effects; if it makes evident the
nature of objects; _if it brings to bear all over the field of war the
light of essentially critical investigation_,--then it has fulfilled
the chief duties of its province. It becomes then a guide to him who
wishes to make himself acquainted with war from books; it lights up the
whole road for him, facilitates his progress, educates his judgment,
and shields him from error."[12]
KNOWLEDGE MUST BE THOROUGH
This Clausewitz considers most important. He says that "Knowledge of
the conduct of war ... _must pass completely into the mind_, and almost
cease to be something objective." For in war "The moral reaction, the
ever-changing form of things makes it necessary for the chief actor
to carry _in himself_ the whole mental apparatus of his knowledge, in
order that anywhere and at every pulse-beat he may be capable of giving
the requisite decision _from himself_. Knowledge must, by this complete
assimilation with his own mind and life, be converted into real power."
* * * * *
So much for Clausewitz, therefore, as the greatest yet the simplest and
least theoretical of theorists on war. Mark well his comforting dictum
that "Theory is nothing but rational reflection upon all the situations
in which we can be placed in war." That is a task which we have all
more or less attempted. Therefore we are all more or less theorists.
The only question is that of comparative "thoroughness" in our
reflections. And it is essentially this "thoroughness" in investigation
and reflection towards which Clausewitz helps us. Like every other
habit, the _habit_ of military reflection gradually grows with use;
till, fortified and strengthened by detailed knowledge, it gradually
becomes Power.
REFLECTIONS
The theory of war is simple, and there is no reason why any man who
chooses to take the trouble to read and reflect carefully on one or
two of the acknowledged best books thereon, should not attain to a
fair knowledge thereof. He may with reasonable trouble attain to such
knowledge of the theory of war as will enable him to follow with
intelligent appreciation the discussions of experienced soldier or
soldiers. Such knowledge as will prevent his misunderstanding the
experienced soldier's argument from pure ignorance, and such knowledge
as will enable him to understand the military reasons put forward and
the military object proposed. To the opinion of such a man all respect
will be due. Thus, and thus only.
It is indeed the plain duty of all who aspire to rule either thus to
qualify themselves to understand, or else to abstain from interference
with, the military interests of the State.