Clausewitz made clear his intention to rewrite his unfinished opus based upon his epiphany that all wars are fought for regime change or something less, but did not live to do so.

Theory, Clausewitz reminds us-particularly any theory addressing warfare-“is meant to educate the mind of the future commander.”Ĭlausewitz and Corbett also gave us the intellectual basis for building a solid theoretical approach to war: defining wars based upon the political objective sought. It also serves to ground us by defining our terms and providing us a firm foundation for analysis while teaching us to distinguish between what is important and what isn’t. Poorly reasoned, poorly constructed theory-which includes poorly defined terms and concepts-can detrimentally influence how wars are fought, as well as whether or not one wins them.Ĭarl von Clausewitz told us why good theory is necessary: “The primary purpose of any theory is to clarify concepts and ideas that have become…confused and entangled.” Theory, as Sir Julian Corbett tells us, can help “a capable man to acquire a broad outlook.” Theory should teach us to think, to analyze, to bring a critical but informed eye to the problem at hand and consider both its depth and breadth. Much of it uses theoretical approaches to the study of war, but these have generally failed to help generate policies and strategies that lead to victory. Modern writing on warfare too often lacks this needed basis. The term is commonly used in discussions of warfare, but usually as an undefined catchall that fails to provide a firm foundation for discussion and analysis.

The historian Peter Paret pointed out in 1960 that “any discussion of war is bedeviled by a confusion of terms… the definitions have undergone repeated modification-and in different countries not always to the same effect.” “Total war” perfectly illustrates this problem.

Purpose and Power by Donald Stoker