3 ms·
No. You're saying the opposite of Clausewitz. Clausewitz says that the goals of war are political; that political success in war relies on military success. I a
by torstenvl 5y ago
No. You're saying the opposite of Clausewitz. Clausewitz says that the goals of war are political; that political success in war relies on military success. I agree with that and think it's nearly self-evident.
You're saying the opposite. You're saying military success relies on political success. That's an entirely different proposition and one I disagree with.
> The only way for the U.S. military [to succeed] would have been for ... the commander in chief to follow that advice
The only way the U.S. military could guarantee such a thing would be a coup. I don't think we should be blaming the military for not carrying out a coup. Not carrying out a coup does not constitute military failure.
- sudosysgen 5y agoThat is not what I'm saying, nor what Clausewitz is saying. What is being said is that war is a means to an end, the end being political sucess. The goal of war is political, and war is successful if it achieves its goal. There is no separation in sucess. If you achieve political sucess, your war has been successful. If you achieve military sucess, that means your political goals are achieved, which means you have political sucess. The commander in chief is a part of the US military. Commander in chief is a military rank. If the commander in chief failed to lead the war correctly, then the military failed. You are trying to see a hard dichotomy between both. There isn't. War is part of politics, and politics include war.
- torstenvl 5y ago> What is being said is that war is a means to an end, the end being political sucess. The goal of war is political, and war is successful if it achieves its goal. That is not what you said. You said "the US military is incompetent." Please do a better job of engaging honestly.