USAWC expert discusses Clausewitz

The presenter of this speech is marvelous....he has no script, ne does not read texts from the power Point slides...speeks freely and clearly and in a very organiszed manner..i have seen so many speeches  until now ....but this is i guess one of the most intersting and best i have ever heard (the Topic was very interesting too of course)....congratulations on Dr. Jim Helis...!!

Simply superb

Boy this is great 👍🏽 thanks

There are some things to remember about "On War". First, it wasn't complete. Clausewitz had intended to reedit and arrange the material before he died from cholera in Poland as chief of staff of the Prussian forces involved in assisting the Russians in suppressing a Polish uprising. What we are seeing is not the final product. Second, Clausewitz was a philosopher like Kant and others of the German school. He would state a theory at its purest and then work back on how the theory applied to reality and was modified by reality. He states that violence will always escalate to its maximum level. but then explains why this doesn't happen in reality due to issues such as the "fog of war", political concerns and objectives and limits to the resources available to the opponents. He never meant that violence would or even should escalate to its maximum potential as some have accused. Third, just as important as the baseline statement "war is a continuation of policy by other means" (organized violence by a state or non-state actor is a continuation of the acts by those actors, military and otherwise, to achieve a desired political end state) are his identification of the "Holy Trinity" of government, people and army (armed forces) (represent each as a circle and then draw the circles with overlap representing the integration of that actor with the others. In 1806, the government and army would significantly overlap each other but only barely overlap the people. In Israel, the circles are almost contiguous, with barely any space between them), the "fog of war", the duality of war (the enemy has a vote) and war as a human activity (by every measure the North Vietnamese should not have succeeded in their desired political end state, yet they did). Third, Clausewitz has sometimes been accused of being an "ivory tower" Soldier. In fact, Clausewitz had extensive field service as a company grade officer from 1793-1796 and 1805-06 and as a staff officer in a general officer combat command. He was, in fact, Thielmann's (Prussian IV Corps (IIRC) chief of staff during the Waterloo campaign. This was a period when general officers were expected to expose themselves and the communications systems for exercising command had a shorter range than the weapons systems being employed. Four, Clausewitz was a published historian BEFORE the release by his widow of "On War", both books, articles and essays, including an analysis of Napoleon's Russian 1812 Campaign. Finally, Clausewitz was not saying that war was the only way to achieve a desire political end state, he said that it was ONE of ways in a combination of ways that could be used to do so. On War is still relevant as Sun Tzu when read within the context of themes that apply to military strategy throughout history and to strategic planning today. Work through the Syracuse Campaign of Alcibiades and Athens by identifying the desired political end state and evaluating political and military planning and performance within that context.

We are back to state to state conflicts at 2024

LOL Empire's failing. Now what?

One of the best presentations I've seen, I don't really know much about Clausewitz but I will definitely check him out, the things he talks about sound very plausible and realistic. 

"There are still principles in Clausewitz that apply today to our business"

Excellent lecture.  Very useful and to-the-point  (....from a humble SAMS grad).

I'm a Brazilian and I live in Brazil. Four of my dead relatives were military, during World War Il. All in Allied side. None is alive today. Clausewitz remains a writer to be read.

Problem I see in military leaders today... It's a this or that, yes or no dogmatic type of thinking that limits critical thinking. Clausewitz book is full of concepts about war it's important to see them as such and like any concept it is best shaped into the practical world through critical thinking skills. Even Clausewitz himself understood the task of proposing a set theory or doctrine about war was impossible. It's not about liberal or conservative interruption of war but knowing on the battlefield or viewing the battlefield using both as necessary for effect. Painting the world black or white limits the colors you can use thus painting war as black or white limits your view of approach. You want the results of your predecessor do what they did, if you want different results do what you think and if your want the best results do what they did not along with what you must. Our regular Army would be much better if the soldiers were trained with same approach used on our best. It's not costly to use social psychology on troops or to teach it to commanders, it's not costly to train soldiers about basic principles of combat down to the cook in garrison, it's not costly to teach soldiers about COIN where it worked when it didn't, and certainly it's not costly to get both a critical thinking soldier as well as an obedient one following the values of the group. You want a good Army have good officers you want a great Army then train individual soldiers with same care as officers. Soap box rant and nothing against Clausewitz but I see more necessary for the narrative.

it's von clausewitz

do you have part 2 where he lectures about clausewitz's generalship and leadership as he mentioned in the end of the video??

The fog is not mentioned but four times in On War. Friction encompasses both mental and physical challenges. The idea of total war is a Plato concept of the absolute war. It is not possible even with nuclear weapons. This is an interesting conception but I think there are some different points that are glossed over 

do you read "on war " ?

Moving from state to state conflict?

He said he´s a Clauswewitzian, are there other contemporary doctrines of War that are not? Would be interesting to know

now we need a basketball show about Michael Ordan (no, this is not a typo) seriously, that "von" is part of his name.

No, he really means the element of randomness. Let's say there is a 10 percent chance that it rains and your support will not arrive in time. The probability is in your favour but there is a chance that fate will turn against you. The militarius genius has to be able to take such things into account and adapt to them. This is what he meant by chance as I understood it after reading the passage in the original.

Other officers at 28 and 29 were learning about how to manage TROOP and infantry "stuff". Clausewitz was studying something WAY above Battalion Commander management. Clausewitz was doing NATIONAL management. I totally forgot he was ROYALTY.