"On War" will always be a dense and difficult work to read; it has so much information in so (comparatively) little space, and the concepts are frequently new to modern eyes. Nonetheless, a great translation makes the book far more accessible than does a poor one (such as the Wordsworth edition uses). The Howard/Paret translation is the definitive English language version. Any student of war, or even of politics, should read this book in this translation.


too tough   September 26, 2003
 7 out of 34 found this review helpful

Having read The Prince and The Art of War I thought I could handle this book. I was wrong. It's so dense, so indecipherable. You'll find you've read a whole page and you have no idea what it was about.


When it comes to war, Clausewitz wrote the book   January 20, 2003
 22 out of 26 found this review helpful

Clausewitz treats war as a natural, social organism, which can best be understood by practical experience. In reaction to the attempts by Jomini and other strategists to rationalize the theory and practice of war into discernible, scientific laws, Clausewitz emphasizes the capriciousness of warfare. As in all human endeavors, chance is a random variable in the conduct of war. Implicit in Clausewitzian thought is a distinction between strategy and tactics. While certain principles are useful for tactical calculations, Clausewitz asserts that no "laws" for strategy exist; experience, though, can prove of great use to the military commander. Another Clausewitzian innovation is the idea that defense is a stronger form of war than offense. In defensive warfare, a greater degree of the state's internal resources (including her citizen-soldiers) are brought to bear on the military effort. Clearly, Clausewitz warns that offensive advantage, once it has lost its initial momentum or has seen its concentration of force weakened or divided, can quickly be transmuted into a defensive orientation. Thus, a good defense is necessary for good offense (even if only during momentary pauses).

The main contribution of Clausewitz is represented by his maxim that "war is merely the continuation of policy by other means." In other words, war is basically an extension of politics. The initial motive for warfare is encapsulated by a political objective; war is a means to a political end. Clausewitz argues that policy permeates and essentially determines the character and extent of all military operations; the authority of the military commander is circumscribed by the political aims of the state. Thus, Clausewitz essentially maintains that the public sector (the state) must exercise authority over military operations. Although he has no use for military formulae, Clausewitz does offer one postulate: when the costs of the military effort exceed (in relative terms) the positive good of the political objective, then the state should seek a peaceful settlement. The good of the state depends on knowing when to stop fighting as well as when to start.

The most important message conveyed by Clausewitz is that war is not an isolated phenomenon. Any considerations for waging war (offensive or defensive) must be based on the political situation at home, in the adversarial state, and in the world community of potential allies and enemies. Military strength in and of itself is not an adequate gauge for success. A defensive war can be a victorious effort, should the assailant overextend himself. Beyond this, the desire to maintain the balance of power is a strong stimulus for foreign involvement. All in all, Clausewitz portrays war as a human endeavor, involving chance (or "friction") as well as skill. War is not a game involving the maneuverability of human instruments; victory can only be secured on the battlefield. On War is a realistic, pragmatic approach to warfare in all its facets--skill and luck, offense and defense, battle and statecraft, etc. The subservience of the armed forces to political control remains a strong source of friction in today's states--this is only one aspect of the timelessness of Clausewitz's work.

Certainly, On War is a long, difficult read. For those, both citizens and soldiers, who wish to truly understand warfare, however, it is required reading which will ultimately richly reward the diligent reader with much insight and knowledge.


The Definitive Translation...   November 5, 2002
 17 out of 18 found this review helpful

Without going into the details and virtues of Clusewitz's work (suffice to say that whether you agree with what he says or not, this is compulsory reading for anyone interested in war and strategy) I think it's important to point out that this particular translation (by Sir Michael Howard and Peter Paret) is widely acclaimed as far and away the best English language translation available. If you are considering getting hold of On War (especially if you are going to be studying it formally), put your hand in your pocket and get this version.