Brush Up Your Clausewitz

I am spending some of this year rereading Clausewitz’ On War and at a friend’s suggestion will try to share the experience here. Given the size and complexity of the work, the discussion is likely to be as episodic as the book itself.

As is often the case with a work not written originally in English, the first question is which translation to read. I’m reading the Eighth Printing of the Indexed Edition that came out in 1984 which was the text used when I first read On War at the US Naval War College Command and Staff Course, 1986-1987. This version was translated by Angus Malcolm and Elsbeth Lewin, edited by Peter Paret and Michael Howard, and indexed by Rosalie West (modeling this on the index presented in Professor Werner Hahlweg’s 1952, 1972, and 1980 German editions). The translation upon which this latest edition is based went back to that 1832 edition, supplemented by the annotated German text prepared and published in 1952 by Professor Werner Hahlweg. The addition of the index addressed one of the most telling complaints first registered against the Paret/Howard version.

The Editor’s Note is the first of several introductions and essays that preface the actual text of this translation of On War. Here the editors explain that this is actually the third translation into English of On War. The first was by Colonel J J Graham in 1874, republished in 1909 in London. Unfortunately, this is considered to be both dated in style and suffering from a “large number of inaccuracies and obscurities” primarily it appears because he based his translation on the third German language edition of On War, which is considered to have suffered at the hands of its German editors. It is worth noting that Graham had himself authored a rather complex work on strategy in 1858 entitled Elementary History of the Progress of the Art of War. There is an interesting article on this background at http://www.clausewitz.com/readings/OnWar1873/Translator.htm though the author refers to the earlier Paret-Howard edition which did not have the index included in my edition.

A second translation by Professor O J Matthijs Jolles and was published in New York in 1943, a wartime translation to support the War Department. Both Graham’s and Jolles’ translations were based upon German texts that were significantly different from the 1832 First Edition.

The editors also reviewed four notes that were printed in that 1832 edition, but written by Clausewitz at different times between 1816 and 1830 to be an introduction. These are presented here in the order in which the editors believe they were actually written (rather than as published in previous editions). They argue that in the sequence presented here, the notes explain how On War took shape in the author’s mind and what he had in mind for its final form. They also dropped the previously used Preface by Marie von Clausewitz which was focused more upon how that first edition was prepared and did not address the subject of the book itself.

Since reading this and related articles I’ve picked up copies of the other translations and will have to compare them after I’ve finished rereading the Paret/Howard version again.

Whistle Blows Snowden into Injury Time?

I like whistleblowers. I dodged a military career because I had read enough to know that generals do not like to hear you say, "Sir, that is the dumbest idea I've ever heard." No one told me that ambassadors don't like it either.

But governments need to be reminded every once in a while by whistleblowers that all of their employees are also taxpayers and voters and citizens - and at least some of them will live up to those obligations by calling out the government when it forgets who it is supposed to serve. Some of these people are just cranks but some are genuine whistleblowers and their efforts force a change in how we do things and how our government does things.

Snowden seems to be moving beyond that role and appears increasingly to be simply the guy who didn't get it and didn't fit in. It may be that he will yet turn out to be the Daniel Ellsberg of government eavesdropping - but the jury is still out on that.

Do I think that what he has done will help or hurt the US? Yes - on both. Do I think he should be punished under the law? Yes. One of the things about being a whistleblower versus a mere crank, is that the whistleblower stands up and takes the chance that his eventual punishment under the law will be mitigated by a general conclusion that he or she has actually done both government and citizenry a public service. I realized a long time ago that one person can accomplish anything - as long as they are also willing to pay the price.

This post appeared earlier today on The Military Philosopher on Face Book, inspired by this article from Foreign Policy: 

Whistleblowers: Thanks for Nothing, Snowden

blog.foreignpolicy.com

When Edward Snowden first started revealing secrets about the National Security Agency's massive surveillance operations, the small community of U.S. government whistleblowers and their advocates publicly leapt to Snowden's

Hey, Watcha Reading?

Like many of my friends, I do a lot of reading, usually as many as four or five books at a time. These often include fiction for entertainment, a military history or two on a battle or campaign of interest, perhaps a biography or memoir, and maybe a political science of economics text or other non-fiction work. This year I am re-reading Carl von Clausewitz’ “On War” and will be writing about it as I do. However, I’m also reading a number of other works right now.

My favorite of the books I’m reading is the newly published and very well-written “Lincoln’s Code, The Laws of War in American History” by John Fabian Witt. It’s the story of the “Lieber Code” approved by President Lincoln and published as General Order 100 in April, 1863. But Witt uses that as the framework upon which to present a history of the laws of war in the United States and internationally. This will be of great interest to both students of the laws of war and of the American Civil War – including reenactors and living historians of that conflict!

I’ve just finished reading a book published in 1946 on Front-Line Intelligence, written as a how-to manual for S-2s and G-2s (the staff officer responsible for intelligence in a military unit). Written by several veterans of World War II, it draws extensively on vignettes, anecdotes, as well as personal experience on how to be an effective intelligence staff officer. This was published by the Infantry Journal Press, a favorite source of period texts and articles on war and warfare as practiced or at least as understood at the time. I found this to be a very entertaining and informative work and will be drawing on it for several of my lectures and talks.

Another recently finished but still close at hand book is Barry Rubin’s The Truth About Syria, published in 2008 but which has been extremely helpful as I try to fathom what is now going on in that benighted country. I should note that the author and I are in some ways old acquaintances after I read his earlier book about US policy and relations with Iran in the days of the Shah and then the Iranian revolution.  I am again so impressed by his work that I will be relying heavily on this volume as I prepare to lecture this year at several venues attempting to explain Syria – as best anyone can. I highly recommend that you try and track this down if you are still yourself trying to understand events in Syria.

From World War I, I’m reading Anthony Farrar-Hockley’s Death of an Army about the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) fighting in France and Belgium in 1914. This is an often harrowing story as you read about these regiments full of regular army veteran soldiers disappearing one by one under the tidal wave of Prussian and German troops that faced them. The record of their performance in this campaign is not enough recognized today, though they are sometimes remembered as “They Old Contemptibles” because a remark reportedly made before the war by the Kaiser called these pre-war soldiers a “contemptible little army” that he would have arrested by the German police if it dared to land in Germany in the event of war. Farrar-Hockley tells their story cleanly and eloquently as he traces the fate of the BEF – that held the line for the Territorials, Kitchener’s Volunteers, and the conscript soldiers who would follow them to Europe.

In a related but more personal vein, I’ve been reading a series of memoirs by those who fought in the First World War – the latest being Over the Top by Arthur Guy Empey, an American who fought in the British Army, and Under Fire, an English translation of a French novel of the First World War based upon the experiences of the author, Henri Barbusse. Empey’s story is a quick and fascinating read as wounds ended his just over a year of service at the Battle of the Somme, but he offers the great details of how the private soldier experienced the war. Barbusse’s novel reflects the not-oft told (in English) story of how the average French soldier (volunteer or reservist) experienced The Great War fought on their own soil.

Finally, for some fun, I’m reading The NPR Curious ListenersGuide to Celtic Music, by Fiona Ritchie, presenter of The Thistle and Shamrock show on NPR. I’ve already learned about the back story to several favorite musicians and groups and their songs even as I’m being introduced to new ones!