As Clausewitz wrote, war is continuation of politics. As such it break when the other methods are insufficient. Nobody ever make war for no reason, there are always intersts behind this, and it also never breaks completely out of the blue.
Nobody say it’s fun (maybe except some idiots who never had to fight) but to say it isn’t viable method of politics is nonsense, as evidenced by the 250+ conflicts just since WW2 not to mention tens of thousands before.
This excuse fits every despicable war the US fought in the past just as well as Russia’s attack on Ukraine. Not sure if this is what you were after.
Also, in the years and years since Clausewitz wrote what you quote, one might acknowledge that international standards have come a long way. Just consider the historical context of the Napoleonic Wars, it’s just not the world we live in anymore.
Additionally, Clausewitz only meant that as an observation, not as something desirable.
I don’t get where did you even suddenly put in the word “desirable”. Nobody said this, not me not you and not Clausewitz. I said “viable”, which is a simple observation based on how many conflict were resolved in this or that way by the wars, and you said “accept war as a method of dispute resolution between nations” which is obviously also true since most wars end in a peace deal which is a resolution of a dispute (it’s usually not desirable to at least one party but it is a resultion), and as such belligerents and most often everyone else do accept war as method of resolving conflicts, else no peace deal ever would be legal.
Obviously some wars are better than the others, for example liberation wars, while US imperialist wars are utterly reprehensible.
Also, in the years and years since Clausewitz wrote what you quote, one might acknowledge that international standards have come a long way.
Not really, as 250+ conflict since WW2 can attest, the only difference is that before the wars were waged and justified differently than now because systems changed, monarchic and bourgeois states needs different methods. War itself also changed of course.
I don’t get where did you even suddenly put in the word “desirable”.
You used Clausewitz’ description in terms of legitimizing war as a matter of politics (as you opposed someone else sarcastically saying you had to accept war as a matter of dispute between nations). If that was not your intention, then your post contains mostly whataboutism, pointing at others doing the same (?) thing in order to not be accused for something.
Obviously some wars are better than the others, for example liberation wars, while US imperialist wars are utterly reprehensible.
Yeah. If you say so.
250+ conflict since WW2 can attest
It’s 77 years since the end of WWII. There are around 200 countries in the world (also depending on how Mother Russia feels today about further annexations). A “conflict” is an extremely wide term. Therefore, I’m surprised it’s not more than that.
Politics are very different today than in the time of Bonaparte, therefore war as a matter of those and the reasons for it are hardly the same. So what I don’t get is why you pull out that 200 years old quote to excuse nations colliding in war in modern times. Yes, war is a reality. Of course it is, nobody ever denied that, just look what a great point you made there! But hell, do we have to like that or drop every effort to overcome it? Europe for instance lives in peace since the end of Nazi Germany, which is probably the longest period since, I don’t know, like ever? Yeah, not everybody was happy with every compromise that came with that peace. But I suggest that those were/are still better than open war.
Let ideas fight & die, not people.
