Under such circumstances, how can a theory blindly emphasize absolute conclusions and rules regardless of human feelings? If it is such a theory, it is useless in real life. If the theory takes into account human feelings, courage, boldness, and even brutality should be given a corresponding position. Military art deals with changing objects and spiritual forces at any time, so absolute and certainty cannot be achieved no matter where it is. The world of accidental activities can be seen everywhere in the war, no matter the size of the matter, the scope of its activities is equally broad. Now that there is contingency, it must be used with courage and self-confidence. The stronger the courage and self-confidence, the greater the role of chance. Therefore, courage and self-confidence are crucial factors in wars, and the rules determined by theories should freely and fully display these indispensable and most precious military virtues in different forms. However, there is a certain amount of wit and caution in taking risks, but they must be measured by other standards.
23. The serious measures adopted by war to achieve its unique purpose further confirm what the war is, the commander in command and the theory of directing operations are as described above. However, war is not a game, nor is it a pure entertainment for adventurers and gamblers, nor is it the product of a whim. It is a serious means of war to achieve its unique purpose. Everything that war exhibits, such as fickleness, passion, courage, fantasy, and enthusiasm, are just the characteristics of this method.
The wars of the social community (the whole nation) under the influence of a certain political situation, especially the wars of civilized nations, are always caused by certain political purposes. Therefore, war is a political act. If war is really inferred from pure concepts, it is a perfect and unconstrained behavior. Only when it shows absolute violence can it be caused by politics, as if it is completely independent of something other than politics. Instead, alternative politics will reject politics and only obey its own laws, just like a package of explosives with a fuse that can only be detonated in a predetermined place, and no other changes can be made. Nowadays, whenever there is no agreement between military and politics, which causes theoretical differences, people naturally think of this. However, the facts are not so simple. It can be said that this view is simply wrong. We have seen that wars in the real world are by no means purely extreme acts, and cannot be eliminated by a single explosion. War is an activity of forces with different development methods and degrees of development. These forces are sometimes strong and sometimes weak. When strong, they are sufficient to overcome the resistance caused by inertia and friction, and when they are weak, they have no effect. Therefore, war is like a violent pulse, which can ease tension and consume energy from time to time. In other words, it is necessary to reach the goal quickly and sometimes slowly; but in both cases, the war has a duration that allows one to accept external influences, make adjustments in one way or another, simply In other words, war still has to be governed by the will to dominate the war. Since we believe that the cause of the war stems from political goals, this original motive that triggered the war should first be highly valued when guiding the war. This does not mean that political goals can determine all issues in a war. With the changes in military operations plans, political goals themselves will often be adjusted accordingly. Nevertheless, political goals are still the first consideration. Therefore, politics runs through the war, and the various forces that play a role in the war continue to influence the course of the war within the scope allowed by it.
24. War is the reappearance of politics through another means
War is not only a political act, but also a real political tool, a continuation of political exchanges, and a political exchange achieved through another means. If there is something special about war, it lies in the particularity of its methods. Military arts often require that political policies and political intentions not conflict with the means of war under the general premise. The commander-in-chief also requires such requirements on other specific occasions, and such requirements are very necessary. Of course, no matter how much impact such a requirement can have on political intentions under certain circumstances, we can only regard it as a modification or supplement to political intentions, because political intentions are ends, and war is only a means, without an end. The means are unimaginable.
25. The Variety of War
The greater the motive of war and the higher the goal, the greater the relationship between war and the survival of the entire country. The more tense the situation before the war, the closer the war is to its abstract form. All this is for defeating opponents, political goals and wars. The more the goals tend to be the same, the more the war will be purely military when the two are exactly the same, and the political goals will be concealed. Conversely, the weaker the motive of war, the less tense the situation, the further away the direction of political development and the natural tendency of war elements (ie violence), the farther away from the natural tendency of war, and the difference between the political goal and the goal of abstract war. The greater the difference, the more the war seems to be subordinate to politics.
Here, in order to avoid readers' misunderstanding, we must explain that the natural tendency of war only refers to the philosophical and purely logical tendency, rather than the tendency of various forces that actually conflict (such as the various emotions and passions of both sides in the war). Of course, emotions and passions can be aroused very high in some cases, and it is even difficult to maintain them within the limits prescribed by politics. But in most cases, such conflicts will not occur, because with such strong emotions and high passions, there is bound to be a corresponding huge plan. If the goal of the plan is not big, then people's emotions will be correspondingly low, and even need to be stimulated, rather than restricted.
26. All wars can be regarded as political actions
Now we come back to talk about the main issues. If politics really seems to disappear without a trace in a certain kind of war, but it is prominent in another kind of war, we can still say without hesitation that the first kind of war and the latter kind of war are equally both. It's political. If the politics of a country can be compared to a person's brain, then the various conditions for the occurrence of the previous war must be included in the category of politics to be considered. Only when politics is not understood as comprehensive wisdom, but as a tactic that avoids the use of violence, prudence, cunning, and even insidious, according to the concept of habit, can we say that the latter kind of war is better than the former kind. More politicized.
27. How to understand war history and establish theoretical basis
First, under no circumstances should we regard war as an isolated military act, but as a political tool. Only by holding this view can we avoid conflicts with the entire history of warfare. , It is possible to have a further understanding of it; secondly, it is this view that tells us that because the motives of war, the purpose of war and the conditions for the production of war are different, the process and result of war are necessarily different. .
Therefore, the most important and decisive judgments that politicians and military commanders should first make should be based on this view to correctly and comprehensively understand the wars launched by them, and should not regard wars that do not conform to the prevailing conditions as wars. It is the war he should start, and he should not want to make a war that has not broken out into a real war. This is the most important and the most extensive of all strategic issues, and we will study it further when discussing the war plan later.
As for the question of what war is, we have studied this; in this way, we have clarified the main thesis on which the study of war and war theory must be based.
28. Theoretical conclusion
The process of war is constantly changing, and its nature will change more or less under different specific circumstances. Judging from the general trend of the phenomenon of war, war can also be said to be a strange trinity, which includes three Aspects of content: First, the inherent brutality of the elements of war, namely, the sense of hatred and hostility, which can be regarded as blind natural impulses; second, war is a probabilistic and accidental activity, and these two characteristics are also Make war a free spiritual activity; thirdly, war as a political tool is subordinate, and war can be treated as a purely intellectual act.
Among the above three aspects, the first aspect is mainly related to the broad masses of the people; the second aspect is mainly related to the military commander and the soldiers under his leadership; the third aspect is mainly related to the government and government officials. The latent passion in the hearts of the masses is fully vented in the war; in the kingdom of probability and contingency, the extent of courage and intellect often depends on the characteristics of the commander and the army; while the political purpose is purely a matter of the government.
These three trends have different laws, are hidden in the nature of war, and at the same time play different roles. Any theory, as long as it ignores one of them or determines the relationship between the three at will, it will immediately contradict reality until it loses any meaning.
Therefore, our responsibility is to keep the theory in balance between these three tendencies, just like finding a balanced fulcrum between the three gravitational points.
As for what method can be used to better accomplish this difficult task, we are going to study it in the chapter "Theory of War". But no matter what, the concept of war established here is after all the first light projected on the basis of our war theory. It first helps us distinguish a large number of surface phenomena and enables us to distinguish them.
The purpose and means of war
In the previous section, we learned about the complex and changeable nature of war. In this chapter, we will study how the nature of war affects the purpose and means of war.
Let me first ask a question. What kind of goals will be pursued in the entire war that will become a tool for achieving political goals? We have discovered that the goals of war, like the political goals of war and the specific conditions of war, are constantly changing.
If we start from the pure concept of war, we must admit that the political purpose of war is not included in the scope of war. Since war is a violent act that forces the other party to obey the other party's will, what it pursues is always and can only defeat the other party and make the other party unable to resist. Although the purpose of defeating the opponent is deduced from the concept, in reality, the purpose that people pursue on many occasions is similar to it, so we are going to discuss the purpose of destroying the enemy in reality.
Later, we will discuss in depth what is meant by making the enemy powerless in the chapter of "War Plan". Here we must first clarify the three elements of the enemy's army, land, and will. They are the general objects that can summarize all other aspects.
First, the enemy's army must be eliminated, that is to say, the enemy must be reduced to a situation where it cannot continue to fight. By the way, I would like to explain that the "destroying enemy forces" mentioned later all mean this.
Second, the enemy's territory must be occupied, otherwise the enemy will still organize and establish new troops there.
Third, even if the above two points are achieved, the enemy’s will has not been defeated. That is to say, the enemy’s government and its allies have not signed the contract, or the enemy’s people have not succumbed, we cannot think that the war is over. , That is, the hostile tension and the activities of the hostile forces have ended. Because even if we completely occupy all of the enemy's land, the enemy may still regain resistance within its own country or with the support of allies. Of course, this situation is still possible after the contract is signed (this also means that it is not a battle that can completely solve the problem and end the incident); however, with the signing of the contract, many sparks that may continue to burn in secret It will be extinguished, and the tension will gradually ease, because all people who yearn for peace will completely dispel the idea of resistance. Such people will be the majority in any country and under any circumstances. Therefore, in any case, we should admit that with the signing of the contract, even if the goal is achieved, the war will also end.
Among the above three elements, the mission of the army is to defend the country. Therefore, in a natural order, the enemy’s army should be eliminated first, and then the enemy’s land should be taken. Only through the victory of these two aspects and the superiority we were in at the time, It is possible to force the enemy to make peace. Usually, defeating the enemy's army is achieved step by step, and the subsequent seizure of the enemy's land is also achieved step by step. The two often influence each other, because the loss of land will weaken the army. But the above order is not absolute and static. Sometimes the enemy’s army may not have been significantly weakened, and may have retreated to the other side of the country, or even completely abandoning its own land and retreating abroad. In this case, it is possible to easily occupy most of the enemy's land, or even all of it.
In addition, in order to make the enemy unable to resist this abstract goal of war, that is, the realization of political goals, including the final means of using all other methods, does not have its status everywhere in reality and meet the necessary conditions for peace. Therefore, it cannot be considered theoretically. It serves as a rule. In fact, when some contracts are concluded, the belligerent party is not in a position of powerlessness, and sometimes even the balance of power is not obviously damaged. Not only that, we only need to make observations to know that in some cases, especially when the enemy is much stronger than ourselves, destroying the enemy is just a meaningless conceptual game.
Since abstract warfare and real warfare are different, the purpose derived from the concept of war cannot be universally applied to real warfare. We have already discussed this point in the previous section. If war is really as purely conceptually defined, then a war between countries with vastly different powers does not conform to reasoning, and therefore it is impossible for war to break out, because in purely conceptual terms, only the difference between the two sides’ material power does not exceed the spiritual difference. When the power can compensate, war can happen. In the current social state of Europe, the gap in material power that spiritual power can compensate is limited. Therefore, when we see wars between countries with great disparity in power, it is often because the actual war is far from its original concept.
In a war, in addition to the loss of resistance of one party, there are two other situations that may prompt peace. One is that it is unlikely that both sides will win completely; the other is that the price paid for winning is too high.
As we have discussed in the previous section, the entire war is not necessarily governed by strict inherent laws of inevitability. The process of war is often affected by probability estimation, and the conditions that produce war also make war suitable for probabilistic estimation and generate war motives. The weaker and the less tense the situation, the more so. That being the case, it is not difficult to understand why probabilistic calculations give people the idea of peace. Therefore, the war does not necessarily have to wait for one side to defeat the other before it ends. We can imagine that when the motive for war is weak and the situation is not very tense, even a very small and almost invisible possibility can make the unfavorable party make concessions. If the other party has foreseen this in advance, then he will work hard to realize this possibility and avoid war, instead of first choosing and embarking on the detour of completely defeating the other party.
Concerns about the power that has been consumed and the power that is about to be consumed will inevitably affect the determination to make peace. War is not a blind action taken on impulse, but a behavior with clear goals dominated by political goals. The value of political goals determines the military. What a price to pay for the action. The cost mentioned here means sacrifice, not only the scale of the sacrifice, but also the length of time to endure the sacrifice. Therefore, when the consumption of military power exceeds the value after the realization of the political goal, people will inevitably consider whether to abandon the political goal and make peace in order to avoid greater losses.