Can Clausewitz's concepts of genius, friction and the centre of gravity be applied to the war on terror?

Résumé du document

Ever since evolution, man-kind has been moving hand in hand with war. Just like people, war has evolved too and never stayed the same over a period of time. Wars, such as the ones fought by the Vikings or Barbarians, and the wars of the Roman Empire already revealed elaborate tactics (infamous squares formed by soldiers with their shields), while the Napoleonic wars introduced new elements like new weapons, mass army, professional soldiers, and so on. However, the one thing they all clearly had in common was the battlefields. No war could be fought without soldiers and a battlefield. However, this rule may not be applied on the modern wars of our times. An example is the Cold War which was not based on physical war, as the armed forces never had direct contact (except through client states). The same can be said of today's War on Terror, referring to the numerous suicide bombings. In this paper, I will attempt to explain, to what extent Clausewitz's concepts of war may or may not be applied to this particular war.

Extraits

[...] Taking for instance that Osama Bin Laden is the terrorists' centre of gravity we can assume that even if he was eliminated, his position would immediately be filled a successor. They have secrecy of actors, by which is meant that no one knows who is going to make the next attack and besides that, even if an actor is identified he probably will have conducted his plans already so it will be hard to bring the organisation to justice. As already mentioned the cells and networks are hard to locate, although 2 some progress is made every once in a while, which leads us to conclude that the Terrorists show no clear gravity to be destroyed. [...]

[...] I will explain to which extent Clausewitz's concepts of war can or cannot be applied to this particular war. Firstly by introducing these strategies and then moving on to comparing offence and defence-related advantages which the West and the Terrorists have respectively, in regard to these concepts. The concept of Genius as Clausewitz defines it himself is harmonious association of powers, in which one or other may predominate, but none must be in opposition”. In other words Clausewitz sees the genius for war as a certain trait of character which enables the military leader to make the right decisions at the right time and to see the 'unseen'. [...]

[...] As a whole, mobility and flexibility could be seen as their only form of defence. The more militarily and security-like sophisticated West however clearly has better means to defend their countries. They are able to control the entries of potential threats and neutralise them immediately. Furthermore they probably are better qualified in tracing the sites of the cells and their members. Western countries have a great economical advantage, considering the fact that they have the possibility of imposing sanctions on 'terrorist-supportive' countries as a counter-active measure. [...]

[...] Can Clausewitz's concepts of genius, friction and the centre of gravity be applied to the war on terror? Ever since the existence of man-kind it has been going hand in hand with war. Just like people, war has evolved too and never stayed the same. We could refer to wars such as the ones fought by Vikings or Barbarians, the wars of the Roman Empire which already revealed elaborate tactics (infamous squares formed by soldiers with their shields) or perhaps to the Napoleonic wars which introduced new elements like new weapons, mass army, professional soldiers etc. [...]

[...] Police are trying to find and break up these cells but they are not easy to trace. The Terrorists, thence, manage being a constant threat and maintaining transparency towards their enemy. However there are certain disadvantages such as the lack of a professional military leadership and perhaps a H.Q. As for the West, one might first think that they definitely have the most advantages because of their organised forces, especially because several countries are working together (U.S., Spain, G.B., and Denmark), which gives them a mass-army. [...]