Political Science

Mahmoud Mawardi

Professor Slavick

Pol 1

3 February 2019

This paper presents an analysis of some of the sections of one of the works of Carl Von

Clausewitz on war. This analysis is done by comparing and contrasting some of the sections in

chapter one of the book, analyzing their relevance to political wars of America, their weaknesses,

the biasness of the work, and general applicability of the concepts brought out in each of the

sections. The second section of this chapter brings out the clear definition of war as the act of

forcing one’s enemy to comply with your will. In a political context, this implies that through

war, one country can force their political adversary to do as it pleases them. When one country

compels their political adversary to do as per their will, they slowly overthrow them and in the

long run, they make them incapable of any further resistance (Von, 2014). The author brings out

the idea of physical force as the greatest strategy used to disarm the enemy, an action carried out

by the military army of a particular country. This section vividly brings out the idea of war and

how it is initiated and the strategies that a country uses to compel their enemies to do as per their

will.

In the fourth section of this chapter, the author brings out the importance of totally

disarming the belligerent. For a country to compel an adversary to do their will, they must

forcefully and tactfully put them in a disadvantageous state in which it becomes hard for them to

resist further. This section, therefore, brings out the main duty of a military army as to totally

disarm their opponent country. The section also clearly brings out the idea of the second

reciprocal action (Von, 2014). This implies that war is not just about exerting a live force on a

dead mass but while one country is trying to overthrow their enemy, the enemy is also trying to

fight back. Ideally, no country is a master of the war here, as they both try to disarm each other

through their military teams.

Section 11 of this chapter brings out the correlations between the political objective of the

war and the military actions. The higher are the demands of a country to its enemy as stipulated

in the objective, the higher is the level of resistance from the enemy. Therefore, the military army

must also put in place more efforts if they are to overthrow their highly resisting enemy. At this

point, the political object of the war comes back to the front and overcomes the mere military

aim of disarming the enemy. Section 23 brings out the idea that wars emerge as a result of the

political motives of different nations. This is very true in most scenarios of world or nation wars.

It a nation’s effort to acquire political glory, most times it does so at the expense of other nations

and in order to make them yield to their demands, wars must come in place. War is not an act

which is complete in itself (Von, 2014). Therefore, the initial political object must be put in

continuous consideration. War is just a political instrument or means used to achieve various

political objects and as thus, the two must be critically inter-twined because as the means cannot

be separated from the objectives, so can the war not be separated from the political motive

behind it. This idea is clearly brought out in section 24. The existence of warring nations is

highly dependent on the strength and the extent of the motives of the war. The military aim

coincides with the object if its efforts to incapacitate the enemy match the object of the war.

The above sections coherently agree from one section to the next, complementing each

other as pertains the concept war. They clearly bring out the motive beyond wars between

nations, the idea that war is an instrument to achieve a given political motive, and the idea of

disarming the enemy as a way of compelling them to act as per their desires and wishes

(Echevarria & Antulio, 1996). The above-discussed sections are very applicable in most wars

that have happened in the past in America. To see this, let us look back at the Mexican war that

happened between the United States and Mexico between 1846 and 1848. This war was

precipitated by the United States’ annexation of Texas and their intentions to go ahead and annex

California and other states that were considered to belong to the Mexican territory (Vera, 2018).

The two parties tried diplomatic means to solve the problem in vain because Mexico constantly

refused to engage in such negotiations. As a result, America decided to forcefully annex those

Mexican territories that could not be annexed on diplomatic terms. This led to the emergence of

war.

In this scenario, the political object was America’s motive to annex Texas, California,

and other states that were considered to belong to the Mexico (Vera, 2018). The American

government ordered its troops to go to the boundaries around the target cities and this is how the

hostilities between Mexico and America began. This is in line with section two of this chapter

where military armies are used to disarm the enemy and make them yield. Mexican troops had

advanced into America and this provoked America to declare war. The aim of the Mexican troops

to advance to America was to protect the Mexican boundaries and disarm the American

government, efforts that bore no fruits. After annexing most States, American troops entered

Mexico City and remained there until they fully overthrew Mexico and peace was restored. Here,

the war was a means or a political instrument of annexing Mexican cities.

The various relevant tools of analysis in the Mexican war were the Interest Group Matrix

and the media analysis tool. An interest group matrix is an analysis tool that tries to identify the

type of politics that a country faces, the aspects that could lead to a war, and the strategies that

both the country and the opponent could use to face the war. Here, America understood that they

were facing boundary problems and so they strategized themselves so well for the war. As such,

America’s military team seized California, took control of the Northern part of Mexico, and

entered and resided in Mexico City. The American government also sent a Calvary force to

Western Mexico in fear that the British government would also seize the same area (Vera, 2018).

America knew all their opponents and all the possible threats and positioned themselves

strategically. America also understood well the role of media in wars. Earlier on before this war,

America had started inventions and innovations to improve the communication system. They

understood that the media has a critical role to play in wars. The implications of these

innovations were that news would be quickly passed between the generals and the troops at the

field and the generals would act appropriately to the changing situations. The war also gained

support from the public because they kept abreast with the news and based on the information

that they received, they were influenced to support the war. This is called media analysis.

In conclusion, I totally agree that Clausewitz work is simply the best. It has compiled

ideas relating to war in a perfect and coherent manner. The writer is very impartial and brings out

the ideas very clearly and without any biases (Echevarria & Antulio, 1996). However, wars

between nations do not always have to be based on politics as the author puts it. For example,

there is currently a war between America and China but its basis is on trade terms and there is

nothing political about it. The war does not always use force from the military team to disarm the

enemy. For example, in the current America-China trade war, trade barriers could be used to put

the enemy at a disadvantageous position.

References

Echevarria, I. I., & Antulio, J. (1996). War, Politics, and RMA-The Legacy of Clausewitz.

NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV WASHINGTON DC INST FOR NATIONAL

STRATEGIC STUDIES.

Vera, E. R. (2018). The US-Mexican War (1846–48) in School Textbooks: Mexico and the

United States in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century. In Textbooks and War (pp.

73-96). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Von Clausewitz, C. (2014). Carl von Clausewitz: Historical and Political Writings (Vol. 1203).

Princeton University Press.