Advice from Clausewitz for Obama

When you're thinking over this whole Syrian intervention, it's always helpful to remember your Clausewitz. Here are a few helpful tidbits that the President should consider if we're going to war with Syria.

In any specific action, in any measure we may undertake, we always have the choice between the most audacious and the most careful solution. Some people think that the theory of war always advises the latter. That assumption is false. If the theory does advise anything, it is the nature of war to advise the most decisive, that is, the most audacious. Theory leaves it to the military leader, however, to act according to his own courage, according to his spirit of enterprise, and his self-confidence. Make your choice, therefore, according to this inner force; but never forget that no military leader has ever become great without audacity.

If you're not prepared to go forward boldly, it may be better not to go at all. Half-measures don't win battles. If you know your objective, go forward with confidence. What's our objective, again?

Here's more. Specifically, look at points #5 and #7.

The few principles, therefore, which come up in this connection, and which depend primarily on the condition of the respective states and armies, can in their essential parts be very briefly summarized:

1. General Principles

I. Warfare has three main objects:

(a) To conquer and destroy the armed power of the enemy;

(b) To take possession of his material and other sources of strength, and

(c) To gain public opinion.

2. To accomplish the first purpose, we should always direct our principal operation against the main body of the enemy army or at least against an important portion of his forces. For only after defeating these can we pursue the other two objects successfully.

3. In order to seize the enemy's material forces we should direct our operations against the places where most of these resources are concentrated: principal cities, storehouses, and large fortresses. On the way to these objectives we shall encounter the enemy's main force or at least a considerable part of it.

4. Public opinion is won through great victories and the occupation of the enemy's capital.

5. The first and most important rule to observe in order to accomplish these purposes, is to use our entire forces with the utmost energy. Any moderation shown would leave us short of our aim. Even with everything in our favor, we should be unwise not to make the greatest effort in order to make the result perfectly certain. For such effort can never produce negative results. Suppose the country suffers greatly from this, no lasting dis- advantage will arise; for the greater the effort, the sooner the suffering will cease.

The moral impression created by these actions is of infinite importance. They make everyone confident of success, which is the best means for suddenly raising the nation's morale.

6. The second rule is to concentrate our power as much as possible against that section where the chief blows are to be delivered and to incur disadvantages elsewhere, so that our chances of success may increase at the decisive point. This will compensate for all other disadvantages.

7. The third rule is never to waste time. Unless important advantages are to be gained from hesitation, it is necessary to set to work at once. By this speed a hundred enemy measures are nipped in the bud, and public opinion is won most rapidly. Surprise plays a much greater role in strategy than in tactics. It is the most important element of victory. Napoleon, Frederick II, Gustavus Adolphus, Caesar, Hannibal, and Alexander owe the brightest rays of their fame to their swiftness.

The tools of war change through the ages, but the philosophy of war does not. In addition to reading his theory, I would also assign The Guns of August to our President as some required reading. I have an old copy around somewhere that I can let him borrow.

Syria and the Just War Theory

More on Syria, y'all. Yeah, it's like that. This whole clown-show we have running our government really has things going swell. Since Congress is now "debating" whether or not to authorize the President to use military force a/k/a DECLARE WAR on Syria, let's talk about that for a moment. 

First, let's not kid ourselves. The President has proposed a "time-limited and scope-limited action" against Syria. Ok, what does that mean exactly?

It likely means we are going to launch missiles from submarines or surface ships and blow up buildings in Syria that are military targets such as military headquarters, bridges, radar sites, etc. We're going to blow up stuff in a foreign country with missiles and kill people.

Now, I grant you, it's not exactly the Normandy Invasion, but it certainly ain't junior prom, either. Whatever you want to call it, I guarantee you the people who are killed by missile attacks will not like it. They'll probably consider it war. Remember when two airplanes slammed into the twin towers? What did we consider that to be?

So, as our President likes to say, let me be clear: It's a declaration of War that he's seeking from Congress. It's not a big war. It's just a small, short war. And we're confident that the enemy will not be able to respond by bringing the war back to the US.

Also, the proposal from President Obama doesn’t satisfy the conditions of Just War theory. For those of you scoring at home, the conditions of the Just War Theory:

This is a big, over-simplification, but the basic three elements of a Just War are traditionally:

1. Just Cause;

2. Just Authority; and

3. Just Result/Intent.

Punishment is never a just cause. Defense of others is, but that’s not Obama’s proffered justification. He says he wants to “punish” chemical weapon usage. He also lacks Just Authority. He refused to go to the UN because in the words of an administration official, it would be pointless. Finally, the proposed war lacks a Just Result/Intention, since he says he wants to hurt others, but not to the point of causing their surrender.

That’s just the traditional Just War theory. If you want to add the modern elements of:

4. Proportionality; and,

5. Last Resort.

it gets even worse. Proportionality means that the benefits of war are proportional to the evils of war. “Saving face” is not proportional to killing people. And that's what the President has proposed. He wants to show that he means what he says, even when he says dumb things. And finally, there’s no argument that Obama’s “just enough not to be mocked” war could ever be a “last resort”. (Also, too late on that one, Skippy.)

Anyone in Congress who votes for this moronic little war throws the Just War theory out the window.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's no way we can strike Syria without it being a Just War, but the proffered military strategy here of "let's just dock Assad's allowance and move on" ain't it.

US Intervention in Syria: Why?

Apparently, our Nobel Peace Prize-Winning President is seriously considering sending military assets into Syria because...we'll I'm not sure way. On one hand we have a  oppressive tyrant who has committed atrocity after atrocity in the pursuit of keeping the country under his thumb. Not really a guy that we like.

On the other hand, we have a force of rebels led by jihadist elements of Al-Queda who are bent on establishing an Islamic based state. These guys aren't exactly who you want to bring home to mama, either.

So they're killing each other in a civil war of sorts. So far, about 100,000 people have been killed. Most recently, the tyrant has used chemical weapon on the rebels, killing a thousand or so. What to do?

When the US (or any country) is making the decision to intervene and bomb (kill people), there needs to be a solid reason why. Killing people is....a big decision, you know? We should be able to answer one of these two questions before taking military action:

1. The use of force is absolutely morally justified in order to protect ourselves, in that we have to do so because it's directly in our interest not to be a victim of an attack. (Self Defense)

2. The use of force is absolutely morally justified in order to protect another group, in that we would not be able to live with ourselves in being a bystander, while another group is harmed. (Defense of others)

Ideally, there should be a mix of the two. In the case of Syria, it's pretty clear that #1 doesn't apply. We're not being attacked, and we're not in any imminent danger of being attacked. It's a civil war in a country between jihadist elements and a secular dictator. Neither one of these groups likes us, and neither one of these groups is sympathetic. Why should we bomb either side? If we do, what's our goal? Is it to level the playing field? Is it to decapitate the regime? Is it to stop the use of chemical weapons, but allow normal killing to continue? Is there a moral difference between killing someone with chemical weapons and shooting them with an AK-47? Either way you're just as dead.

I know it's not a popular philosophy in foreign policy, but the doctrine of "Meh, shit happens..." shouldn't be overlooked here. I know that comes across as isolationist, but there has to be an event somewhere in the world that falls under the category of "Not our problem".

I think Syria qualifies as such.

Decline of the West?

Is the US on the decline? The grass withers and the flower fades...

The Wisdom of Socrates

Obama certainly doesn't have it. First of all, respect to Bret Stephens for getting into some philosophy. Much more below the jump.