War Is Inherently Political

Sun Tzu and Clausewitz on War

War on Terror: The Relevance of Historical Perspectives on War

Sarah Miller (2012) evaluated the relevance of historical texts for explaining contemporary society's efforts to combat terrorism. The two texts chosen for her essay are On War by Carl Von Clausewitz and The Art of War by Sun Tzu, with the first published in 1832 and the second about 2,500 years ago. Miller (2012) seemed surprised that the older text appeared to be more relevant and attributes this to the philosophical lens through which Sun Tzu explained the art of warfare. By contrast, the value of Clausewitz writings is limited by his emphasis on warfare tactics relevant mainly to the time period in which he lived. Miller (2012) used these points and others to argue that Sun Tzu offered the most value for governments tasked with combating a terrorist threat, in part because modern terrorist organizations defy the traditional definition of an enemy used by Clausewitz.

One of the first points discussed by Miller (2012) is the different ways Clausewitz and Tzu view warfare as either a political tool or a necessary evil, respectively. Although Miller (2012) favors Clausewitz's perspective, the War on Terror seems to be less political than more traditional armed conflicts. For example, diplomatic pressure, trade sanctions, and weapons of mass destruction inspections cannot be imposed on Al Qaeda in the same way they were imposed upon Saddam Hussein; however, Miller (2012) describes how the U.S. government bribed warlords in Afghanistan to reject Taliban control. Political considerations are therefore inextricably linked to armed conflicts with terrorist organizations, but I disagree with Miller (2012) that Sun Tzu downplayed the importance of politics. For example, the first of seven conditions determining victory or defeat is which combatant has the moral high ground (Tzu, 1994).