Philosophical Reflections on Metawar

By Daniel Fidel Ferrer

Definitions: War is organized violence carried out between two or more groups (who must have some scheme for recognizing group membership) in pursuit of some mutually exclusive political ends. Professor Dr. Christopher Bassford. War is a violent (harmful) clash of wills between two groups. Daniel Fidel Ferrer. There are many different types of definitions of war: operational, practical, literary, theoretical, political, metaphor, philosophical, pragmatic, empirical, sociological, historical, media, and of course real ones. Since this is a group of philosophical reflections, therefore, the task is for you the reader to create and construct your own working definitions of war. The purpose of these reflections is not to give a persuasive argument and for you to agree with me. What is the point in that project? But rather, for you carry out your own task for thinking, for you to reflect on the nature of war. Perhaps my reflections will help you with yours. Introduction The methodological use of aphorism allows us to break open in any place and in any direction our reflections take us. When we are looking down on the field of war we do not have to move linearly, but rather can take any view or perspective on the subject of war. The aphorisms can be unpacked in any direction. In other words, thoughts and ideas are often not in some essay format. Specific details may be left out. The ideas may provide insight. This is not about coming up with a proof or winning one over to some point of view, but rather, to engage in the reflections. Again this is not a scholarly or specific treatise on the nature of war or a specialized study, but rather musing on the nature of metawar, war, and warfare. 1

How would we go about creating a systematic Hegelian analysis of metawar? War is a complex behavior of animals. Yes, ants carry our war and humans too. Conflict is the essential nature of war. In order to think about war in a systematic way we need to create a system of category and concepts to allow our thinking to grasp the overall whole of the conflict. If we can gain the overall whole concept of the conflict, this may lead us to a deeper insight in how to mitigate or actual win a war. Although it is important to consider war philosophically, there are no guaranties that this will change the outcome. Thinking is not magic. A coach of the football team can not think his defensive ends to be as fast as wide receivers. However, the coaches do come up with strategy to reduce the effectiveness and speed of wide receivers. 2 Even thinking of war as conflict may lead us in the wrong directions. Parents and teenagers are often in conflict perhaps the war of the generations. The levels of war are of course one of the major parts of its complexity. 3 War can thought of as an attempt to impose ones will over another one or group. The assumption is that one can cause some kind of change in a group. 4 Extermination maybe the best one can do against terrorism. Absolute war maybe when there is only one side left standing. 5 Warfare is a complex interplay between applied engineering and human (individuals, groups, cultures, nations, groups of groups) engineering. 6 History is the backdrop to war, but history can not give us our overall conceptualization of war. The study of history necessarily means war is a part of the human history. On the other hand, if we are to grasp war, then we need a lot more than just history. Historical methodology is a lot more endless content than actual method. There are too many details in history (studies) and too little thinking. The nature of metawar and war needs more thinking and fewer details, more thinking and less history. This does mean a break with history or attempts without history, nevertheless, the answers are in history but not of historical studies. War is more about the whole and it is ubiquitous throughout history and as mentioned includes other animals (clearly ants). 7 Warfare has also a strong resource management component. Logistics is always part of war as a war is often a conflict of competing resources. Food, oil, and water are some examples. 8 War is a continuous process in time and space. Both time and space are the defining limits of resources. Although warfare is the internet makes the space a virtual unlimited arena, it

still has a defined realm (in the internet). This is an example of warfare over resources that are not exact ally in some cases physical resources. Network resources are physical, but there is an interesting ownership problem, since some telecom company may actually own the network, but I can make use of the network for warfare with only having the access rights to that network. Another example is the world wide GPS satellite system. Everyone has access. The network resources are not like a river or a railroad where ownership controls all of the access. The internet acts a communication conduit for both sides of the conflict. 9 Metawar is about war and the process of war. Metawar allows us to take a step back and consider and reflection on the overall nature of war. Warfare is the actual operational processes of war. The nature of warfare leads to the nature of war. The hierarchy of concepts will begin the systematic arrangements of the category. These can not be static concepts. The rank of the concepts presupposes a value philosophy. What are the highest values? What are the lowest values? What is the in-between the highest and lowest? Metawars essential features are arrived at through a meta-analysis of war. The ground of war is not rational. Although this is nothing irrational or crazy, but rather comes out the nature of our fundamental sense of danger. Irrationalism is an empty concept. War is partial a rational concept, but it has the friction of reality. War is a conflict in values and ranks of values. 10 What is the contradiction to war? Note: it is not the color blue. Part of the conceptual framework is already in a place and is implicated in the dialogue. The conceptual framework emerges as reflection brings us to a disclosure. The true-isms and principals reveal themselves through reflection and by use of the standard of history. 11 If ants engage in war, then can we say that ants have a will? War defined as a conflict of wills. F. Nietzsche talks of will to power. M. Heideggers analysis points to the will to Will at the end of western metaphysics. In this case, the word will is both a verb and with Heidegger the second part of the phrase the word Will is a noun. How can we have the will to dominate others? Why not leave them alone? No, we can not do that. Our will drives us to another course of action. 12 If a single knat attacks a human it is small matter to kill it. If a thousand knats attack a human in can be a grave concern. If a thousand humans attack knats in general, then humans can do more damage to knats. Numbers, size, and brains all count. Humans can change the knats genes. This would be called genetic warfare at the species level. It has been done already. In case, one side is at war and other side has no knowledge of the war and never will. Where is the conflict in this war? Damage is being done. There are winners and losers, but perhaps no conflict. Silent killers. 13

War - I know when I see it, but I am not sure or certain of its real nature. What is suffering? You would get surprising results if you asked a Buddhist and a nurse. War is when a person, a group, a nation or nations piss me off. They should not have done that!! 14 Warfare is us how you make war. Do not hold back. Goals, objectives, and plan the executive summary of how to make war, then you do implementation. Sounds good on paper, but all of this conceptual stuff has to happen in reality. Make it happen. You think about warfare, then you need translated that into something in reality. Note: this project is not like building house, where it comes out looking like the blueprints. There are always partial results and pockets of confusion. So, it may look different at ground level. 15 What is the cause of war? Historical forces that have lead to the conflict or someone senses danger and got piss off. 16 What is the purpose war? To win, to dominated, and to impose our will on the others, to exterminated them if needs be. 17 What is the goal of war? To make sure our way of life continues. To win. To continue our values, to justify our worldview as surviving. 18 What is the nature of war? Animals live in space and time mostly issues over resources. Can also be a conflict in values? 19 What is the organization of war? Many levels and types of complex organizations (groups) leading toward more order and rank. 20 Civilization based on peace would define certain values. These kinds of values might not lead to long term survival of humanity. Peace-values have the wrong rank. I. Kant wrote an essay on Perpetual Peace in the late 1700s. This supposedly lead to the creation of the League of Nations (which Heidegger was against in the 1930s) and then on to the United Nations. However, think of the counterexample of Frank Herberts Dune series. What is the tension between very long term peace and war? By some super management method and a long time from if there was control over all of the nations could we come up with long term peace could the UN be a way of bring peace to the world. Instead of some

ideal of peace on earth should we think of trying to reduce warfare and come up with a real objective for example, less than a thousand people die per year in warfare. 21 A systematic architectonics of concepts is a general problem of ancient Aristotelian problem in metaphysics. Kant had a solution. The One and the Many is an essential issue in Platos dialogue Sophist, but the issue of metawar is more precisely determined as a regional ontology. N. Hartmann and E. Husserl took up this general problem in the early 20th century. The problem of henology of how the One become Many is not an issue here, but how to create a system for metawar needs to have the roots and foundation based in a regional ontology. How to do that? 22 What is the metawar project? Is this to create a specialized engineering project or a specialized science? This would be the final science of warfare. Are we trying to construct a worldview? Whereas all conceptual apparatus would go toward constructing a single worldview working on the empirical details one of the major parts of this project. Principals and rules would be based on historical analysis of previous wars and some particular battles to create a super strategy for warfare. 23 Wars strategy is bringing your enemy to a condition which is most favorable for you and least favorable for the enemy. For example, the city of Baghdad in the summer without water, electricity, and food this might be uncomfortable. Do the fighting in the desert and not in cities. Fighting would be better at night. The environment (geography, weather, attitude, religious events, and timing) and situation makes it hard to fight. Perhaps doing something like having rock and roll music playing over the radios would help. All of this leads to confusion and chaos. Keep the enemy off guard and create mis-direction -- allows for weak places to be exposed. 24 Most wars take place in a defined space and time, hence the major issue of where and when. Although less of an issue with computer warfare. 25 Management of war points toward the efficient and effective way of managing resources. Nevertheless, the goal of managing resources is not making profits but to win the conflict and the war. 26 Even minor wars provide good practice and preparation for larger wars. Plus, of course it is a question of stressing the rank of the values. What are the values? 27 How would we create the correct categorization of our conceptual framework? This is one of the main issues in creating a system of metawar. We will not find the answers in a

textbook, rather this makes us think out this issue. Research via philosophical reflection seems to be the way to work on the problem. 28 War is the clash of worldviews. We want you to enjoin our worldview and do what we want you to do, namely, to bend to our will. We can kill you because you think slavery is way of the world. My worldview includes freedom of newspapers, but I will not kill you that. But if enough of your worldview is different than mine and you threaten me. If I sense danger, then I might at least damage you so you quit threatening me. 29 A computer hacker may have the same worldview and the conflict is not exactly a war, but rather, the computer hacker is simply trying to steal something from or damage you. Seeing how strong they feel. These are really criminal attacks per se rather than a true war. If a computer hacker is just trying to damage you because of conflict with your worldview, then perhaps you called this warfare terrorism. All this is part of the confusion in the responses to attacks. When some one declares war on you (you might not know it) and you treat this as a criminal attacks, then you may not be taking the war serious enough. Terrorism can be thought of a criminal activity or as warfare or some combination of both. Why are there war crimes? There are war laws and war crimes. Killing people is ok; it is rather how you kill people may involve crimes. 30 I sense danger, then either you back up or you go on the attacks. From fear it is either flight or attack standing still is not an option. Perhaps it more complex, plus I think those are some of the basic sensations (emotions, moods). Once the reflective mechanism begins, then it becomes a lot more complicated what happen next, however, I think it has to start with that initial sense of danger. Now that danger can happen to a nation. 31 Why did we come in second place during the Southeast Asian war games in Vietnam? In America we did not have a straight worldview we lost to ourselves. Our weakness was not the enemy, but rather, ourselves. We will not lose a war in the future. Our time has come. What will happen is our civilization will go out of balance! The Soviet Union was not defeated in some final large tank warfare in Eastern Europe. Why did it collapse? America needs to take notice. Our own internal conflicts and contradictions will bring us down. During our war with Vietnam it was not the media that stopped us or soldiers were drafted and not professionals, but rather, our worldview was conflict. Perhaps that is why we have endless dialogue about going to war with Iraq (fall 2002), let us get America so our worldview and purpose is clear. We need critical debate over anything major we do, but then we need to back our military once the decision has been made. If we have learned anything is that we go to war we need to back the military 100% until that war is over, then let the critical debate resume if it is needed, but never during the war. Also, I think it is clear now that almost anyone can not bring the war to the soil of America or at the very least they can attack us over the internet. With terrorism this seems more likely after 9/11.

32 Why does war beget more war? Nations are in a kind of balance and during and after war then balance changes, once that balance is changed, then the new balance creates the opening for more conflict and war. The balance involves groups of Nations. Nations feel danger and are threaten. Hence, the possibility of war increases. 33 Civilizations and nations can lose in war and then come back from war as a great nation. The best examples are Japan and Germany. Although some how Germany ended up more damaged long term than Japan, perhaps because Germany was occupied and we learn a lot more about the details after the war, but I think we ended up hanging more Japanese because of war crime trials than Germans. 34 Perhaps would will happen to America (take notice) is that America will collapse and be splitting in 7 or 8 parts and will not be centralized. This is what has happen to the Soviet Union. But what kind of historical causes would create a situation that would make America to split into parts? These would be attacked from within our culture. External attacks I think only make us stronger. One very external assault would be a meteor landing. I do not think that actual meteor impact would be a problem, but what if (N.B.) it caused fires throughout the Midwest and East coast area. If large parts of America were burned off (fact - this has happen in the distance past) this might cause major resources problems that might cause the nation to end up with splits based on areas that burned off. 35 What kind of wars do we have? Cold war, war on drugs, war on crime, war on the internet, war on terrorism, war on Aids, biogenetics wars, or war against communism. War against large a meteor landing on earth a fight for our survival (I sense danger). Corporate warfare. Religious wars. Gang warfare. Wars against ideas and ideals. 36 We are going to take our resources and try to stop or damage or exterminated whatever it is that we are attacking. If we want have a war against slavery, and then we do whatever we can to stop slavery or the conditions that lead to it (period). For example, have the UN make it an international law signed by everyone in the UN that slavery is against the law world-wide. This makes it crime, but there still needs to more done in the war against slavery world-wide. The law would be one part of the warfare.

37

The enemy of your enemy is your friend. Perhaps, this would be some one at least someone to talk with. Was Stalin that good of choice Germany might not have been defeated without him, but what kind of allied was Stalin? He seemed a good copycat of our planes and bombs. 38 Like an animal a damage or hurt animal or enemy can become more dangerous when they are hurt. The enemy can become dangerous as the balance between groups or nations can be under going stress. As you stress the enemy their resources (for and against) become clarified and directions and points of strength are enhanced. This is also when you need to gather all of the intelligence and make an objective review of the war. Their weakness will be more obvious, but this is also the time to review defensive plans as this mostly like will become last time of a major attack. Think of the battle of bulge during WW II. 40 Is war a good thing or a bad thing? I do not think that is the right question. War is what you do after you are in danger. War is a tool in itself. War is a means to accomplish a goal or objective. The goal or objective can be good or bad. Water can be used to kill people. Is water a good thing or a bad thing? You see wrong question. 41 What are the essential parts to a worldview? How can worldviews be in conflict? There are links to values and ranks of those values. Civilizations have ranked values concretely in them. This is what is meant partial by our way of life. Civilizations decline and fall because of wars, but these also come apart by themselves. 42 The UN maybe a good idea, but that does not prove that peace will break out world wide. On the other hand, it does not mean that we will get trapped in the wrong wars either. 43 Could we lose the war and yet convinced everyone else to follow our worldview? Yes and no. We lost the war in Vietnam and yet what came of that? Vietnam is a communist country. What did the USA lose in that war that matters today? We lost men and materials, a certain kind of pride, we lost the impression that we can not lose a war, and yet, we survived and our worldview has changed; but nevertheless, did the war change our civilization. I did not think so. The Korean War was fought to stand-off. Perhaps we regained the ground we lost, but I am not sure when can we won that war. Could we wipe out Korea or Vietnam? Yes, but some how these were not the objectives of those wars. After those wars are America and the world better off? Answer: yes. By the way did the Soviet Union lose the war in Afghanistan? Answer: yes. How is that possible? What were the objectives of that war? Were those lost? Most likely this was lost. Did this help us? Yes.

44 Weakness and strength can be greatly increased with technology, but superior intelligent work can often out class technology, because the more know more about the enemy the easer attack will be. Terrorism can damage our worldview much more easily than they can ever attack our military. This is the importance of our worldview. We need the best defense against attacks on our worldview. How can we do that? What would that mean? 45 Terrorism can attack our computer systems and hurt our economy, but I do think this is any kind of terror to people. The computer systems are under attack all of the time in a strange way this helps us a great deal. It makes us better prepared for any serious attack on our systems and yet does very little serious damage to our computers (taking the big picture, since it may still cost millions of dollars a year). 46 Some of the computer warfare is about the media of making your case on the world stage. Web pages help you make your case for you and against your enemy, so your enemy may seek to damage your web site or access to your web site. Fights for media and access to media are important for marketing your position. 47 There is a very good case to be made for war where your enemy does not know they are under attack or even if they lose until it too late. In this case, they may have a feeling they are losing and they may sense danger, but they are not sure how or where the attack is coming from. A silent attack. Economic wars can sometime happen this way. Think of Central America during the last century. 48 Bioterrorism can also be a case in point when it often hard to tell what is nature and what is an attack. For example, West Nile has been reviewed to see if West Nile is a natural outbreak. Most likely any outbreak of smallpox would not be considered a natural outbreak. Bioterrorism has the possibility of being manipulated to target specific groups. 49 What is the scientific theory of war? Could there be a science of warfare that would be more of a rigorous science than the art of warfare? Husserl tried to come up with phenomenology as a rigorous science. There could be a science of warfare that would include simulation of warfare within certain probabilistic bounds. Even gross estimations would be possible given just sizes of army and based on past history. There are certain keys to warfare, for example, air superiority would be one of those keys, and I think everyone agreed. Using superior weapons and superior sizes would seem to lead to the conclusion that the one size would win. Although Israel has shown that superior numbers is often not enough to win wars.

50 What would a systematic conceptual framework (architectonics) for war look like? One way of doing this would be come up with a correct categorization. Define all of the concepts, define the relationship between the concepts, examine the values in the system and rank them. What is the methodology for working on the architectonic of war and warfare? Obviously, the friction of war already pre-determines that there will be problems in the actual, real, genuine warfare. But when that has that ever stop people from searching for and working on the details of theoretical work. A concept is way of grasping reality as it is now, was in the past, and will be in the future. The concept is an idea that correspondents to actual process in the real world. For example, the idea that as the stock market goes down people will invest in the bond market. These concepts have a life of their own and are considered to be actual knowledge. The use of mines are an actually process and technology used in warfare and they come in all sorts of size and shapes. How would all these concepts come together in framework? There are meta-levels of these concepts and therefore it opens up the possibility of working on some levels. We can start with more general concepts first. Obviously, we do not need start with the Being of beings, which some may say is the general of all universals. The most universals of all universals (well until Heidegger came along and thought it out more fundamentally). What are the top concepts? What is the inner essential nature of the concepts? More later 51 War what is good for? Absolutely nothing. So, much for this little song. What is war good for? This is sort of the question what is the purpose of war. What is the purpose of war? The purpose of war in general is to overcome the conflict. In a different way, you can say the purpose is to resolve the danger. The danger is taken in a sense that you want to protect your love ones, your group, your nation, your worldview, etc. When you experience the danger, then you think of using war as a tool to deal with that danger. Man as the tool maker. In this case, the tool is war. War is a means to an end. Do the means justify the ends? Are we allowed to use war to kill other people? Yes. Should we use other means before we resort to war? Yes. Of course, given the chance, given all of the various details, given there are other possible means. Did Argentina think through the implications and ramification before it started a war with the United Kingdom? I think they did not. They were not certain that their aggressive act would make the UK come after them. Plus in theory, Argentina was in a much better position than the UK. Argentina did not actually execute their warfare plan very well. Maybe the nature of man is not as a tool maker, but a higher level man as the war maker. War is more than just a simple tool. War is a complex tool, plus more. What is the more than just a tool? War as a tool. War as way of defining your civilization. 52 Why go to war? If you do not have go to war, then do not go war without good reasons. The reasons must have to do with danger, unless it is a straight economic war where the danger is economic resources. War is about protecting resources from danger. 53

What dangers are apparent or hidden in our civilization? What can we do about them? How many dangers for us reside in other nations? These dangers are not simply that other nations would make war against us, but what materials they may have or had that can be used against us by terrorist. There are other kinds of dangers. Some of which we can not know at this point. Some things remain hidden for possible weapons in the future. 54 War should not be taken likely, but on the other hand if the enemy thinks we are weak minded and will not go to war if there is danger, then there are even more dangers. There the possible dangers if our image is that we are weak. A weak enemy that has strength is almost as bad as wound or hurt enemy unpredictable goes up. Small groups with power within nations can think about lashing out at a weak enemy. This is why we need to take terrorism with excess forces, so that we are never seen to be weak. If you see weakness the nature reaction is to attack quickly. Thus, being seen as weak is major image problem. This can lead to all sorts of people and groups attacking. 55 One of the hard parts to war is picking all of the pieces afterward. Planning for what happens after war is part of the goals and objectives for war. Options are part of the plan depending on how the direction of war goes. The nations and the balance of power after the war is complex and there are many parts for the planning to go to war. 56 Force and power all go the technology of war. The technology of war is ever changing and not changing. Technology is part of the tools for war. 57 In warfare there needs to be the balance of many different groups and organizations. This is one of the reasons for having small wars, since getting the balance right with technology is hard to do. As the war is in progress keeping the balance with feedback and communications is part of the on going challenge. Simulations should be able to help as the war progresses to keep the forces in balance. 58 Even the questions of how to handle mistakes is important, since all aspects of war have to be included in the plan. Mistakes have to be enfolded in the organization as part of that organization. Hiding mistakes can take on a life of their own, so all aspects of war have to incorporate into the on going operations of warfare. 59 Luck is just part of the equation and means the low odds happen sometime. Options have to be included even for low odds. We all live in a stochastic world. What are the odds? How can we increase the odds?

60 How can we train emotions to over come the dangers? Is this a training question or just a straight process of thinking? Perhaps emotions and moods can be too subjective for warfare. When we sense danger is that an emotion or a mood or rather something more fundamental in thought that invokes in us something more than just a short term emotion or mood? What is the essential nature of danger? Is it some kind of emotion or mood or sensation or perception or is way of being in the world? The idea of danger does produce something more than a simple emotion. Although note that the idea of 100 dollars can be thought about all you want and it will not produce a real or actual 100 dollar bill. But ideas do affect the world. Money is of course just an idea. The paper represents the money and is real, but still the 100 dollars is still an idea. 61 Is some ways the past wars help us with some general historical understanding but the detailed plans for future wars have to work out on their own merit. Historical understandings may make people jump to the wrong conclusions. The specific details of any plan for war need to be work out and reviewed by people with various backgrounds, so that historical understandings do not lead to mistakes. Attempts at objective walkthrough need to be made of war plans. Critical analysis is more important than historical understandings. 62 War is one of those parts of our civilization that speaks to the whole shape (Gestalt) and direction of our civilization. 63 Working on the details of plans for war is great, but at the beginning there must be a total vision of how to attack and win a war. That vision is how the total war will unfold. Although of course the war may not actually go that way of that vision. Iraq seems to have no air war against the forces in Desert Storm. 64 Some people fight wars with guns and knives other people fight with ink pens and computers. Some people fight wars with words. Of course this is leaving out the people who fight wars before they happen, so the danger goes away without coming to the point of absolute war. Can a war be won without a single shot? Yes. This is not wining a war in ones mind, but real changes take place. 65 Realism is the touchstone of a science of warfare. Idealism can still show the way without getting in the way. What progress can we make toward making war not happen? Making war not happen, that is, heading them off before hand this too is making war. Lots of strengths and technological force can ward off wars before they start. This takes the same kind of resources as warfare. Stopping war is clearly a good thing only if the dangers go away. When this happens there still maybe a balance problem to worked out, so the same

problems of winning of war applied to stopping a war, since there are still winners and losers. 66 There are many ways to skin a cat, but sometime there is only one way to win a war. 67 Absolute wars sometimes need a light tough at the weakest point of any enemy. This may be enough to warn the enemy off and to make them change their agenda and even perhaps their worldview. 68 The sum of the whole is greater then the sum of the total parts. Overwhelming force is great than the parts. The whole can be seen as whole and hence can be overwhelming. The gestalt of the force can also be seen and show its overwhelming shape. This too will lead to defeating the enemy. Another word for this would the compounding factor. 69 Warfare on the internet could slow the response of governments to respond to attacks. This would depend on how various government agencies are depending on the internet to provide communications in emergencies. 70 Danger is an idea that can drive forces in civilizations. These forces can drive civilizations to war or can drive them else where. What are the options with danger? 71 How do we define the values of war for the American civilization? What is the support of the people of America for issues regarding war? One thing is clear there is a huge budget for the military. Some people may say for defense, but there is a lot more than the US Department of Defense budget. What were the feelings for the draft during the various wars in the past 100 years? Vietnam is some how a special case. What about the other wars and the draft? What other values speak to Americans concerning war? My father was never interested in VFW. Why do some people become part of VFW? Or, some people stay in the reserves in their 30s, 40s and into their 50s? Is this to show their pride in their country? Or, is this to have cheap beer with a bunch of guys. In some other countries they have a mandatory draft for 9-24 months and they train all men. Perhaps they would be a good idea. Thailand most males are Buddhist monks for awhile in their 20s even though they know they will not end being monks, but it strengths their religion in their culture. There needs to more done to install military values in America, since in some ways we all under attack after 9/11. 72 What does it mean to have power and control over the enemy? This means that your will controls the enemy. The will has the power and its will to will give it a mastery over all. It is possible to win the war but not have mastery over the enemy. This is when they come

back after you years later. The other theory is that you have a mastery over the military of your enemy and their nation continues, then you make deals to try put in a different form of government (Germany, Japan, and Afghanistan). You try to change the government and hope that it leads to a change in the enemies worldview. This would a worldview that does not include you as the enemy anymore. Will to power, will to mastery, will to control, will to force these all point toward dominates and power over the enemy. If the enemy can feel the power of forces against them, then this can lead to the idea of the futile attempts to fight. 73 The true nature of war is a conflict. The mood of war is irrelevant, since war is in many ways not a choice. The war comes to you as a danger and we can not live in danger. Sometimes it just simply a matter that someone else is controlling you or getting the better of you, thus you sense the danger and the thought of war is at least considered. The thought of war is seen as a tool to overcome the sense (not just an emotion or mood) of danger. The sense of danger can be immediate or even long term. The idea that the world will be running out of oil and the Middle East may have fresh oil reserves but still tripling the price of oil would make us at least think about a war of conquest. The book entitled the The Coming War with Japan points in the same long term direction. If the St. Lawrence Sea way was block because of fighting inside Canada, I think we could see ourselves engaged in war in North America. The sense of danger is to our way of life and that does not mean that the nation as whole as to be threaten. Our economy way of life is an essential part of our way of life. Prosperity is an embedded way of life. Therefore, a threat or danger to our prosperity is taken as a danger to our way of life. Obviously, there are lots of long term threats to our prosperity, but if the sense of danger is becomes real enough for us, then war becomes more of possibility. Another way of thinking about is this that prosperity and progress is one of the golden ideals of most governments, hence the threatening of a golden ideal will often lead to war. The USA Civil War can be seen as a conflict over the ideals of America. One of the ideals of America is as moral leader, so the whole concept of slavery was against this ideal. Concretely there was also the issue of states versus the centralized government. How much freedom do the states have? Can the states have slavery even though the federal government on paper at least was against it? Why did Lincoln consider the break up of the union worth going to war? Part of this war was a conflict of ideals. 74 How do you convince others to become allies? You make them sense your danger and by extension make them sense their own danger. Plus, you can convince them that you will be the victor and being on the winning side is important. There might also be the spoils of war for them. There might be historical reasons why the United Kingdom supports America. Did America support UK in their war against the Argentina? Why kind of support was that? Did America support UK in their war against communism in Malaysia? How can we find other allies that do not seem to have the same worldview or the same danger? This can be a problem. Sometimes it is back to the enemy of your enemy is your friend or you have friends because of whom your enemies are.

75 Does the future tell us that war will radically different? The nature is war is already different than a hundred years ago. Where are the heroes now? At some levels the nature of war is different and yet at many levels the war is the same. Clausewitz is two hundred years from us and yet, many of the concepts and their applications are the same. Why is that? Perhaps the principals are similar but the technological applications at the concrete level are different for soldiers.

Monday, November 18, 2002 Note: I have no military training that gives me any special experience or knowledge of war or warfare. These are philosophical reflections and may not provide any useful knowledge for the actual engagement in warfare. That was not the point. Daniel Fidel Ferrer.

References:
Special thanks to Professor Dr. Christopher Bassford. The work on Clausewitz was the starting point for these reflections, but I went in a different direction. The Clausewitz Homepage http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/CWZBASE.htm Vom Kriege by Carl von Clausewitz http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege/VKTOC.htm On War by Carl von Clausewitz http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/On_War/ONWARTOC.html

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS DOCTRINE

FMFM 1: Warfighting (1989) (HTML) [c.118Kb]

Click on the button to view on-line versions of the following new publications, all of which draw heavily on Clausewitz. MCDP 1: Warfighting (1997) MCDP 1-1: Strategy (1997) MCDP 1-2: Campaigning (1997) Other USMC doctrine can be found via https://www.doctrine.usmc.mil/ See also Christopher Bassford, "Doctrinal Complexity: Nonlinearity in Marine Corps Doctrine."