War and Politics: Are both one in the same

His home in England was around the main gathering point for the D-Day invasion. Along with his fathers service in orb war I, Keegan felt himself drawn to contendds the military and its workings. Unfortunately Keegan was ineffectual to officiate in the British Military due to a childhood illness. Although Keegan was unable to serve his country, he was determined to find his way into whatever expression of the military. With a degree at Oxford, Keegan became a military historiographer. This es govern provide take a look into Keegans work, A History of warfare, and his thesis that war is non a continuation of government activity.This es affirm will refute his thesis with evidence from Clausewitz, fallacies in Keegans novel and military conflicts over the preceding(a) xxx years. Keegan has dissected the workings of the military and the military soldier. In his novel A History of Warfare, Keegan disputes the Clausewitzen speculation that war is the continuation of policy by opposite means. Keegan supports his possible action by giving explanations of how Clausewitzens theory is invalid. To understand Keegans position oneness must first be familiar with Clausewitz. Clausewitz was a Prussian regimental officer during the Napoleonic wars.Upon retirement, he wrote the book On War. The books main thesis was war is the continuation by policy by other means. Keegan disagrees with Clausewitz by saying Such at statement implies the cosmea of states, of state interests and of clear-sighted calculation about how they may be achieved. Yet war antedates the state, fineness and strategy by galore(postnominal) millennia. Clausewitz, a child of Aristotle, went no that than to say that a semipolitical animal is war making animal. incomplete dared confront the cerebration that domain is a thinking animal in whom the intellect directs the inhale to hunt and the ability to kill.Keegan suggests that war precedes states by many millenniums. First, Clausewi tzs thesis does not imply there must be existence of states. Perhaps the political entity of the state did not exist hardly tribal life did. The tribe is a political entity. The watchword has many accounts of tribal warfare for political gain. It varies from Moses leaving Egypt to David defeating Goliath. Keegan also states that war precedes diplomacy and strategy as well. The bible also recounts many strategies and diplomacy between tribes and states. more or less historians might object to the bible being a reliable ascendent exclusively no one can refute that what happened in the bible was not true or accurate. We are cultural animals and it is the richness of our coating which allows us to accept our undoubted potentiality for violence but to believe thus far that its expression is a cultural aberration. History lessons remind us that the states in which we live, their institutions, even their laws, have come to us through conflict, often of the to the highest degree blo odthirsty sort. Keegan is referring to the statement made by Aristotle in which he said, existence is a political animal.Keegan said that Clausewitz is a child of Aristotle and he believes that a political animal is a war-making animal. Keegan refutes them by saying, Neither dared confront the thought that man is a thinking animal in whom the intellect directs the urge to hunt and the ability to kill. How can he say that he disagrees with Clausewitzs theory when he himself claims that the states we live in now have come to be by conflict Doesnt that support Clausewitzs theory The point about uncomplete Aristotle nor Clausewitz confront the fact that man is a thinking animal is a bit confusing.Yes man is a thinking animal and throughout business relationship there has been countless rulers, dictators and emperors who have used war to gain political control. A primordial example would be the conflict between Julius Caesar and Pompey. mend Caesar was in Gaul waging war, he used ag ents to dominate politics in capital of Italy. Caesar used politics and military strength to seize control of Rome and become the emperor. Man is a thinking animal and those in power, especially in the early years of history, were continually thinking on how to mature more.Keegans big fallacy is his statement Politics played no bust in the conduct of the First gentleman War worth mentioning. He goes on to say The Germans, French, British and Russians found themselves apparently engagement war for wars sake. The wars political objects, difficult enough to define in the first place, were forgotten. political restraints were overwhelmed, politicians who appealed to reason were execrated, and politics even in the liberal democracies was rapidly bring down to a mere justification of bigger battles, longer casualty lists, costlier budgets and overrun human misery.The Encarta Encyclopedia states the following The underlying causes of gentleman War I were the spirit of intense nation alism that permeated atomic number 63 throughout the 19th and into the twentieth century, the political and economic rivalry among the nations, and the establishment and maintenance in Europe after(prenominal) 1871 of large armaments and of two hostile military alliances. The fundamental causes of he conflict were rooted deeply in the European history of the earlier century, particularly in the political and economic policies that prevailed on the Continent after 1871, the year that marked the emergence of Germany as a great conception power.Keegan fails to give one argument supporting his statement. How he can say that politics played no role worth mentioning is beyond me. He not altogether gives no arguments but goes on to say, we are stock-still right to see Clausewitz as the ideologic father of the First World War, just as we are right to perceive Marx as the ideological father of the Russian Revolution. The appalling fate that those armies brought upon themselves by their dedication to it may be Clausewitzs enduring legacy. To compare Clausewitz and Marx is stretching it a bit.To blame Clausewitz for World War I is ludicrous. Once again Keegan fails to support his theory. Keegan goes on to say that Clausewitz is the ideological father of World War I. One can have got that if Keegan states Clausewitzs is to blame for World War I then wouldnt he be supporting Clausewitzs theory If war is the continuation of politics and Clausewitz is to blame, then isnt it objurgate to say that war is the continuation of politics Keegan he was not the but one who had this theory. Radical military writers such as the British historian B. H. Liddell Hart had such theories as well.He accuses him of urging the largest possible worthless with the largest possible numbers as the key to victory. Later Liddells thoughts were dismissed. Keegan, adhering to Liddells theory, once again has himself in a no win situation. He has stated that man is a thinking animal so shouldnt man be hefty enough to figure out war and conflict without going to the past Shouldnt a general wage his own war, not an officer who wrote a book in the pastKeegan concludes his theory with these thoughts Culture is a prime determinant of the nature of warfare, as the history of its development. Politics must occur war cannot. That is not to say that the role of the warrior is over. The world community needs, more than it has ever needed, skilful and disciplined warriors who are ready to put themselves at the service of its authority. Such warriors must properly be seen as the protectors of civilization, not its enemies. There is an even greater wisdom in the denial that politics and war perish with the same continuum.Unless we insist on denying it, our future, may belong to the men with bloodied hands. It is great to say that politics must continue but war cannot, but is it realistic For centuries war and politics have kaput(p) hand and hand. What events or individuals have gi ven us a look forward to for change Are recent conflicts a testament to the future The coupled States involment in Bosnia, Somalia and the Gulf War has proven that. Would Keegan say that politics were not involved in those conflicts Keegan fails to share a few major conflicts in history. The Vietnam War and Korean War are not mentioned at all.The reliable theory underlying Vietnam and Korea were political reasons for the conflict. It is true that we went to Korea to support the southward Koreans who were invaded but why were they invaded Political reasons are why. We were politically obligated to support the South Koreans. Chinas involment was purely political. The United States was not going to invade China. To the Chinese, having communist northwards Korea on their border was better than having the United States. Saying that Vietnam was not a political conflict does not give a reasonable explanation.The Vietnam War was the United States supporting a helpless South Vietnam and the United States fighting to keep their influence in South East Asia. With Keegans failure to address these major conflicts he leaves the lector wondering why. There are some errors of interpretation and fact in his novel as well. The atomic assail was not designed to end wars without commitment of manpower on the battleground as the author contends. The atomic bomb was another weapon, which we potentiality we only discovered after its use.Not until a decade later did nuclear weaponry come to take its place among equals in military establishments, at least in the United States. Keegans main goal was to refute the Clausewitz theory of war and politics. Keegan failed in this task. His inability to discuss such politically orientated conflicts such as Vietnam and Korea aids in his failure. His contention that World War I was not political was refuted by a definition in an encyclopedia. Keegan tries to offer the reader a new concept in canvass military history but he is unable to get the reader to follow his train of thought.