Strategy: “On War” Carl Von Clausewitz Part 1

Support the show:
https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US

Buy Grow kit:
https://modernmushroomcultivation.com/

Transcript:
https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/49682562

Speaker 0 (0s): Hey, you guys there. Hey, it's me, George. Look, I'm over here. Can you see me camouflage? Close your eyes there. What's going on everybody. Good morning or good afternoon or good evening. I don't know when you're listening to this, but whenever it is, I hope you're feeling good. You don't so much of the human experience is based on war. 

We've got a war on drugs, a war on poverty, a war in Afghanistan, world war one, world war II, the war of the roses, Vietnam, Korea. We are, we love war. We just love, love, love it. That being said, I thought we'd talk about strategies of war. 

I thought we'd kind of really try to dig in and understand what war is. I thought we would try to just dig down deep, get to the root of all this war. One way to do that is to consult with one of the greatest military strategists of all time. Mr. Carl Von Clausewitz, one of Napoleon's greatest generals. 

He wrote a book called on war. I thought we'd go over a little bit of it here just to see what you guys think. Maybe just to see what I think, maybe just to read a little, understand a little, that way we can all get along a little bit more. That being said, let's check it out. What is war introduction? 

I propose to consider first the various elements of the subject next its various parts or sections, and finally the whole and its internal structure. In other words, I shall proceed from the simple to the complex, but in war more than an any other subject, we must begin by looking at the nature of the whole four here more than elsewhere, the part and the hole must always be thought of together. 

Definition, let's define what war is. I shall not begin by expounding a pedantic literary definition of war, but go straight to the heart of 

Speaker 1 (3m 0s): The matter to the duel or is nothing but a duel on a larger scale, countless duals go to makeup war, but a picture of it as a whole can be formed by imagining a pair of wrestlers, each tries to physical force to compel the other, to do his will. His immediate aim is to throw his opponent in order to make him incapable of further resistance. War is thus an act of force to compel our enemy, to do our will force to counter opposing force equipped itself with the inventions of art and science attached to fours are certain self-imposed imperceptible limitations, hardly worth mentioning, known as international law and custom, but they scarcely weaken it force. 

That is physical force for moral force has no existence save as expressed in the state. And the law is thus the means of war to impose our will on the enemy is its object to secure that object. We must render the enemy powerless. And that in theory is the true aim of warfare. That aim takes the place of the object, discarding it as something, not actually part of war itself. 

So one was introduction to definition three, the maximum use of force kind hearted people might of course think there was some ingenious way to disarm or defeat an enemy without too much bloodshed. And might imagine this is the true goal of the art of war pleasant, as it sounds, it is a fallacy and it must be exposed. War is such a dangerous business that the mistakes which come from kindness are the very worst. 

The maximum use of force is in no way, incompatible with the simultaneous use of the intellect. If one side force, if one side uses force without compunction undeterred by the bloodshed, it involves while the other side refrains, the first will gain the upper hand. That side will force the other to follow suit. Each will drive its opponent toward extremes. 

And the only limiting factors are the counter poses inherent in the war. This is how the matter must be seen. It would be few tile, even wrong to try and shut one's eyes to what war really is from sheer distress at its brutality. If Wars between civilized nations are far less cruel and destructive than Wars between savages, the reason lies in the social conditions of the States themselves and in their relationships to one another. 

These are the forces that give rise to war, the same forces, circumscribed and moderated they themselves, however are not part of war. They already exist before fighting starts to introduce the principle of moderation into the theory of war itself would always lead to logical absurdity to different motives, make men fight one, another hostile feelings and hostile intentions. Our definition is based on the ladder since it is the universal element. 

Even the most Savage, almost instinctive passion of hatred cannot be conceived as existing without hostile intent. The hostile intentions are often unaccompanied by any sort of hostile feelings, at least by none that predominate Savage peoples are ruled by passion civilized peoples by the mind, the difference, however lies not in the respect of natures of savagery and civilization, but in their attendance circumstances, institutions and so forth. 

The difference therefore does not operate in every case, but it does in most of them, even the most civilized of peoples in short can be fired with passionate hatred for each other. Consequently, it would be an obvious fallacy to imagine war between civilized peoples as resulting, merely from a rational act on the part of their governments and do conceive of war as gradually ridding itself of passion. So that in the end one would never really need to use the physical impact of the fighting forces. 

Comparative figures of their strength would be enough. That would be a kind of war by algebra theorists were already beginning to think along such lines. When the recent Wars taught them a lesson. If war is an act of force, the emotions cannot fail to be involved. War may not spring from them, but they will still affect it to some degree. And the extent to which they do so will depend not on the level of civilization, but on how important the conflicting interests are and on how long their conflict lasts. 

If then civilized nations do not put their prisoners to death or devastate cities and countries. It is because intelligence plays a larger part in their methods of warfare and has taught them most effective ways of using force. Then the crude expression of instinct, the invention of gunpowder and the constant improvement of firearms are enough in themselves to show that the advance of civilization has done nothing practical to alter or deflect the impulse to destroy the enemy, which is central to the very idea of war. 

The thesis then must be repeated. War is an act of force and there is no logical limit to the application of that force. Each side, there are four compels it's opponent to follow suit. A reciprocal action is started, which must lead in theory, two extremes. This is the first case of interaction and the first extreme we meet with number four. 

What do you guys think so far? Pretty in depth, right? I thought so number four, the aim is to disarm the enemy. I have you already said that the aim of warfare is to disarm the enemy and it is time to show that at least in theory, this is bound to be. So if the enemy is to be coerced, you must put him in a situation that is even more unpleasant than the sacrifice you call on him to make the hardships of that situation. 

Must not, of course be merely transient, at least not in appearance. Otherwise the enemy would not give in, but would wait for things to i...