A critical review of the Priciples of War
...Principles of war were written, the contradictions contained within the principals themselves, as well as, their historical and future validity. When examining a literary work it is often beneficial for the reader to be familiar with the historical context in which the work was written. Imagine for a moment a student sitting down to read a novel such as the “Grapes of wrath.” Without any knowledge of the economic and social conditions of that era, the individual would be able to understand the written words, but more than likely the message and truths lying within those words would be lost on the reader. Thus, such is the case with the principles of war. Aware of this necessity Keegan points to some of the 19th century influences that helped to shape Clausewitz’s writings. The societal context in which these principles were founded was an era of emerging ideologies. The 19th century produced such new philosophies as Marxism, Darwinism, Hegelianism, socialism, and Owensism just to name a few. Unfortunately, as Keegan points out, Clausewitz chose to focus upon the poorer aspects that the era had to offer. In particular; “the idea of the Hegelian national state, with cruel misapplications of the law of natural selection” that is seen . The application of Darwinism to the national sate is a recurring theme in Keegan’s treatise. Thinkers that influenced Clausewitz, such as Hegel, believed that war between nation states were based upon the survival of the fittest. In an age where Naturalism was being applied to everything from industry to economics, it was seen as only natural that a stronger nation would supplant a weaker one just as in nature. War was seen as a way for civilization to progress and become stronger. Despite all the problems and controversies surrounding Clausewitz’s writings, most Western nations, including Canada, instruct their officers in this doctrine. While Keegan does not disagree with the principles of war being utilized as an educational tool he, does however, disapprove of them being elevated to a dogmatic level. In addition to the inherit problems of applying them to modern conflict he shows that the principles themselves contradict one another. For instance, maintenance of aim and concentration of force would superficially appear to be contradictory to mobility. The way in which historians cite these principles as infallible is reminiscent of a religious zealot dredging up an obscure biblical reference and applying it to modern times. The difference in this instance is that the principles of war are not a moral template to remain inviolate for all time, but rather a crude historical philosophy that attempts to rationalize the brutalities of warfare. Keegan points to the mindset of some in which proponents of these principles will invariably cite historical examples to support their ideas. This type of thinking leads to statements such as; “the principles have brought us success in the past and will do so in the future.” They do not take into account tha...