Nagl argues that before Carl von Clausewitz wrote his famous work, On War, there did not exist a systemization of warfare that realized the fundamental connection between violence and politics. Moreover, he points to the emerging decentralization of governments, due to nationalism among other factors, as causing these kinds of wars to become even more common – while their actions became more accepted amongst the average person, instead of merely written off as criminals, terrorists or bandits. In his influential work on COIN theory, Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife, John Nagl notes that, despite the fact that low-intensity conflict has been the norm, rather than the exception, throughout history, in-depth study of them is rather new. In order to overthrow this incorrect understanding of Jomini haunting the study of warfare today, this paper will present its evidence in the following format: First, a summary of the misunderstandings of Jomini will be laid out Second, a short note on Jomini’s call for caution and sound statesmanship when dealing with complex situations Third, an explanation of Jomini’s theories concerning “irregular” conflicts in general will be provided Fourth, the same will be done for hybrid warfare and Lastly, the same will be done COIN, as well as other types of stability operations. Moreover, recent research has allowed us to access a “restored” text, that combines the original book with recovered notes, additional chapters and appendixes by Jomini that provide us with a far more wide-ranging body of work. This is a shame, because Jomini’s treatise The Art of War, is a rich text that should be necessary reading for every aspiring military officer and civilian analyst. This particular paper will focus on Jomini, because his absence in modern discussion on low-intensity conflicts is far more prominent. This failure to see their potential outside of conventional warfare and the historical context of their ideas’ formation, concerning these two giants of military theory, deprives researchers and officers alike of valuable tools for achieving victory. ![]() Put simply, a misunderstanding of these theorists has led to this attack on their writings. Naturally, because of their significant influence upon the development of “conventional warfare”, as these newer theorists understand it, Carl von Clausewitz and Antoine-Henri de Jomini have been zeroed in for criticism. With the rise in popularity of doctrines concerning low-intensity conflicts, especially counterinsurgency (COIN) and hybrid warfare, several theorists have promoted a separation from the older generation of thinkers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |