Please post a response by Thursday. January 31.
Now that we have explored the philosophies of Clausewitz, Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and Keegan, select the one you believe is closest to the truth. Explain why you think his ideas make the most sense and also explain why the others fall short in their assessment of war. You do not need to agree with the group. Second, take a look at the "Other Views" on war (Einstein, Sherman, Madison, et. al.) and consider their thoughts. Do you agree with any of these views? Why? And finally consider the video we watched from Crimson Tide and tell us who you think is the "true enemy" in war?
Please post a response by Thursday. January 31.
19 Comments
Jake Morin
1/29/2019 10:11:04
I believe in Clauswitz the most. I believe in him the most because of his general idea of war and how rules are pointless when it comes to war as well as how politics has a big role on war and how it occurs. I'm not saying that if you send politics of to a separate island war will not happen because it will happen. The other thing is the rules. Clauswitz says there are rules on war but once it settles in the rules will not be followed. It has happened in both world wars as well as Vietnam were we have settled simple rules and they were just disobeyed once war set in.
Reply
Connor
1/29/2019 10:20:20
I agree with Keegan because he takes a different look on the cause of war and how to stop it. Clausewitz and Machiavelli take a political look on things while Keegan looks at culture. The reason I agree with culture being the main cause of war is because that's what splits us up and it's also why people have a hate for each other. Different cultures have different values, and when two different cultures come in contact that disagree it creates conflict. If we were able to get cultures to respect each other than world peace would be much easier to achieve. If we skip over culture and focus on just politics than countries may agree with each other, but the people within countries that have different cultural beliefs still wouldn't like each other. If we look at politics first and get countries to create alliances that would be a step. But then we would need to culturally unite people and help leaders of countries teach their people to respect other cultures. You need to fix both the cultural and political problem but out of the two I believe the more important is culture and that's why I agree with Keegan.
Reply
Derrick N
1/29/2019 17:43:23
I feel that Clausewitz is the closest to the truth about the nature of war itself, but not the reason. He saw war as an extension of a politician's arbitrary whim, this I firmly believe to not be the case. If a leader said he wanted to go to war without proper justification then the people are by no means required to fight, but many feel compelled by a sense of duty to either their nation or God to fight these wars. The way that leaders are able to provoke the instinct for men to fight, propaganda, and the way that the population gives life to that propaganda is what becomes the culture of war specific to that geo-political sphere that Keegan was referring to. The problem with Keegan's theory is that he believes that if we are able to "unlearn" this culture, which I believe is impossible, then we will not fight anymore. This ignores the instinct to fight within all people. Though Clausewitz is slightly closer in the truth because his thoughts represent the true mantra, "no battle plan survives first contact", and when it comes to rules for war they will only be used to make the loser immoral as well as weak. Should there be rules that are followed from an intrinsic sense of ethics? Yes, but this is more to maintain high morale and dedication of allied soldiers. There should be no expectation that if we set rules, that they will be used fairly. As long as you're the victor, you will not have to deal with the consequences, but some counterintuitive measures should be taken as a means for victory. (sorry for the stream of consciousness style here, I understand its messy)
Reply
Celeste L
1/29/2019 17:56:52
For the most part, I agree with Keegan because Keegan wants to stop war, and believes that our one true enemy is war. Violence has been engrained in us since ancient times, but it is a learned behavior that we can unlearn. Unfortunately, it would be extremely difficult to remove the savagery from within each person. It only takes one person with ill intentions to get into power and press a button that could destroy a nation within a matter of hours, if not minutes. Clausewitz takes things to another end and says that war is a political tool and that there should be no restrictions. That may have worked 100 years ago, but now with the technology we have, it is a dangerous ideology. After looking at "Others Views on War," I agree the most with James Madison. He says that war can lead to many problems within the nation, including the loss of freedom. Many people profit off of war, and in our current political system, companies lobby leaders to do their bidding, so the politicians will starts wars. War leads to material and human loss, so it is up to the politicians to determine if war is the best way to confront a problem. As far as who the true enemy is, I think that the true enemy is those who are violent and are trying to create conflict. Most people want peace, but there are some crazed people who do not. Those who want peace should use their power to promote peace in the rest world. War is a political tool that should be used to protect innocent people from the violence of crazed groups. Some groups do not understand negotiations and force is necessary at times.
Reply
Kyle B
1/30/2019 18:22:50
I believe that Clausewitz is the closest to the truth when it comes to war. While I believe that politics have a key role in war I don’t believe that is the overall decider. I believe that in order to go to war it's the people’s want to be on board with the cause. If the citizens aren't on board they won't support the war, and in turn it will cause them to lose. An internal struggle will ultimately lead to senseless death with no gain or purpose. I also agree with Keenan, war is definitely culture based some cultures prefer to keep out of wars while others will take up arms without hesitation. I disagree with Hermann. I don’t believe that the people can be forced to take up arms, it's a want to fight that allows the war to be fought. Without the support of the people a war will not be fought. It may take time for the war to be abandoned but it will not continue if there is no want. When it comes to rules of war I believe that there should be boundaries that should not be crossed. I can’t say these rules will be followed but there should be some form of punishment if they are broken whether you win or lose. I don’t believe there is a true enemy in war, I believe that war is two sides with opposing views that are willing to fight for their views.
Reply
Gabrielle C
1/30/2019 20:37:31
I believe in Clausewitz when it comes to the truth about war. He looks at war a more political aspect. Politics can be a huge factor when it comes to starting a war. However, I believe that if there is not any type of agreement, there will be no support from anyone. Without agreement , war is a chaos. I understand what Keegan is saying about war is more cultural based. Both culture and politics can split people up and cause a war to occur, but I believe how there are no rules to war and if there is a disagreement, a war is more likely to occur
Reply
Emma D
1/30/2019 20:37:57
After reflecting on Keegan and Clausewitz's philosophies, I hate to say that Clausewitz is closer to the truth. As seen in the past and present, nations continuously break the 'rules' and get away with it. Nobody truly follows the rules of war, making them seem quite useless. Ideally one would abide by the rules and face the consequences for not doing so, but there seems to be a lack of enforcement. This means that it is astonishingly easy to break any rules of war by doing something as simple as denying or sugar-coating the situation. I also agree with the idea that politicians decide if a war is to be fought. In many countries, becoming a soldier is a way to ensure safety from the government and survive. I do agree that there is a sense of duty and honor, especially in America, that can come through serving in the military, but that does not mean every soldier feels that way. At first I did agree with Keegan, but after much thought his ideas seem way too idealistic to be a reality. Yes, it would be preferable to avoid / end war in a time where it is extremely costly, but I do not believe it is a long term possibility. I want to believe that war can be untaught, but the more I think about it, the less likely it seems. Along with Clausewitz, I agree with Sherman. As he implies, war is good in theory, however, the reality is simply a nightmare. After learning what I have about war, it seems that the true enemy of war is war itself. While it is initially begun to hurt another, it inevitably hurts everyone involved. No one truly wins a war, there is always a cost, and that cost is growing steeper every day.
Reply
Sam K
1/30/2019 21:35:30
Although both Clausewitz and Keegan have valid points that are true in a sense, I believe that Keegan is more correct out of the two. Keegan states that war is an animalistic part of human nature, where the true savagery of mankind is revealed, which I wholeheartedly agree with. This also implies that it would be very difficult to unteach war, as it is part of each person. Clausewitz's perspective makes sense to a degree. I believe war starts out as a political act, but very quickly evolves into something more. As much as politics and politicians may try, war cannot be controlled. This connects to "Crimson Tide", as it is stated in the scene the class watched that war itself is the true enemy of war. I also agree with Sherman, who simply states that "War is hell." Although short, this statement accurately sums up that no one ever really wants to be involved in the nightmare that is a war, even if they advocate for it before it commences.
Reply
Eryanna B
1/31/2019 00:10:04
I truly believe that Clausewitz is closer to the truth in regards to war. Most times I believe that war is a political act, however, I not saying that war is only a political act. Politicians have a large influence on whether or not we go to war but I feel like the people have a say. If we do not support the war, we will not win the war. In regards to rules of war as well Clausewitz makes a valid point of saying laws won't work. After everything is said and done laws will not matter to the victors.I also agree with Keegan in regards to war being cultural and something we need to unlearn but I also think he strays further from the truth. I agree with Goering the most because I truly believe that no one wants war but once authority brings it up, it is a thing we go along with. I don't really think the people have as much say as we like to think we do. Lastly I agree with the Crimson Tide video, that the enemy is war itself.
Reply
Lucy Rodrigues
1/31/2019 06:20:12
I believe mostly believe Keegan because Keegan explains how much that the people are affected and that why war is started because of cultures and an example is the Middle East India and Pakistan have be fighting a lot and both threaten to launch nukes at each other but don’t because they know full well the damage it will cause so they don’t launch the nukes and sometimes it will get violent because some people from the other side will come and attack. Even though yes you need oginization but in war sometimes after it starts you can do nothing about it and you can’t control what will happen.
Reply
Grace Swanson
1/31/2019 14:05:05
Looking at the two different philosophers I have to say that Keegan is right about man kind and how the culture is a main effect. Keegan my be a pacifist be I like that he is also a realist and understands that this “world peace” will not come soon. Peace maybe a time sensitive thing to save people’s lifes and save the earth we are destroying but peace is not even close. Keegan understands that and why I enjoy his points of view through more of the cultural ways of men and violence.
Reply
Grace Swanson
1/31/2019 21:06:42
Looking at the two different philosophers I have to say that Keegan is right about man kind and how the culture is a main effect. Keegan my be a pacifist be I like that he is also a realist and understands that this “world peace” will not come soon. Peace maybe a time sensitive thing to save people’s lifes and save the earth we are destroying but peace is not even close. Keegan understands that and why I enjoy his points of view through more of the cultural ways of men and violence.
Reply
Ricky G
2/3/2019 16:05:37
All though all the Philosophers are right In the own way I believe Keegan Is the most correct because unlike all the other Philosophes he saw that war was not only Political but boiled down to the people who are fighting. I also Agree with Sherman simply war is hell. Finally from "Crimson Tide" I agree with the person that said the true enemy in war is war itself.
Reply
Dylan DeGennaro
2/6/2019 14:49:44
I believe that Keegan was the most correct because he wanted to stop the war's from happening. Keegan might be a pacifist but he understood that world peace won't come anytime soon. He realizes this unlike other philosophers in his time. He also explains how war affects people in their life and future.
Reply
James ribeiro
2/7/2019 08:37:29
I think that they should take the risk to hit the rail road because it could be a good thing and the risk to hit somilthing elts but u need to destroy the camp
Reply
Jaes r
2/7/2019 08:50:41
I agree with Keegan because he is looking a war in a diffrent way and a whole difrent way to stop it with a good plan and he want to help and he exsplanes how he can stop and help people
Reply
Madison K
2/10/2019 20:32:39
I agree with Keegan since he is a pacifist and believes that peace won't come anytime soon. Also that culture is a big factor in wars eventhough politics also is a big factor in wars.
Reply
noura
2/10/2019 20:38:48
I agree with Clausewitz.I agree with his general idea of war and how he looks at more in a more political way.
Reply
Rafael L
3/28/2019 18:44:37
Clausewitz is the closest in my opinions as his views on war are accurate when compared the modern wars. Modern wars are mostly started by politics and are controlled by politics.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorArchives
May 2019
Categories |