[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

provinces, the mere occupation of them, the mere invasion of them--enterprises which are aimed directly at
political objects--lastly, a passive expectation of the enemy's blow, are all means which, each in itself, may
be used to force the enemy's will according as the peculiar circumstances of the case lead us to expect more
from the one or the other. We could still add to these a whole category of shorter methods of gaining the end,
CHAPTER II. END AND MEANS IN WAR 28
 On War
which might be called arguments ad hominem. What branch of human affairs is there in which these sparks
of individual spirit have not made their appearance, surmounting all formal considerations? And least of all
can they fail to appear in War, where the personal character of the combatants plays such an important part,
both in the cabinet and in the field. We limit ourselves to pointing this out, as it would be pedantry to attempt
to reduce such influences into classes. Including these, we may say that the number of possible ways of
reaching the object rises to infinity.
To avoid under-estimating these different short roads to one's purpose, either estimating them only as rare
exceptions, or holding the difference which they cause in the conduct of War as insignificant, we must bear in
mind the diversity of political objects which may cause a War-- measure at a glance the distance which there
is between a death struggle for political existence and a War which a forced or tottering alliance makes a
matter of disagreeable duty. Between the two innumerable gradations occur in practice. If we reject one of
these gradations in theory, we might with equal right reject the whole, which would be tantamount to shutting
the real world completely out of sight.
These are the circumstances in general connected with the aim which we have to pursue in War; let us now
turn to the means.
There is only one single means, it is the FIGHT. However diversified this may be in form, however widely it
may differ from a rough vent of hatred and animosity in a hand-to-hand encounter, whatever number of
things may introduce themselves which are not actual fighting, still it is always implied in the conception of
War that all the effects manifested have their roots in the combat.
That this must always be so in the greatest diversity and complication of the reality is proved in a very simple
manner. All that takes place in War takes place through armed forces, but where the forces of War, i.e.,
armed men, are applied, there the idea of fighting must of necessity be at the foundation.
All, therefore, that relates to forces of War--all that is connected with their creation, maintenance, and
application-- belongs to military activity.
Creation and maintenance are obviously only the means, whilst application is the object.
The contest in War is not a contest of individual against individual, but an organised whole, consisting of
manifold parts; in this great whole we may distinguish units of two kinds, the one determined by the subject,
the other by the object. In an Army the mass of combatants ranges itself always into an order of new units,
which again form members of a higher order. The combat of each of these members forms, therefore, also a
more or less distinct unit. Further, the motive of the fight; therefore its object forms its unit.
Now, to each of these units which we distinguish in the contest we attach the name of combat.
If the idea of combat lies at the foundation of every application of armed power, then also the application of
armed force in general is nothing more than the determining and arranging a certain number of combats.
Every activity in War, therefore, necessarily relates to the combat either directly or indirectly. The soldier is
levied, clothed, armed, exercised, he sleeps, eats, drinks, and marches, all MERELY TO FIGHT AT THE
RIGHT TIME AND PLACE.
If, therefore, all the threads of military activity terminate in the combat, we shall grasp them all when we
settle the order of the combats. Only from this order and its execution proceed the effects, never directly from
the conditions preceding them. Now, in the combat all the action is directed to the DESTRUCTION of the
enemy, or rather of HIS FIGHTING POWERS, for this lies in the conception of combat. The destruction of
CHAPTER II. END AND MEANS IN WAR 29
 On War
the enemy's fighting power is, therefore, always the means to attain the object of the combat.
This object may likewise be the mere destruction of the enemy's armed force; but that is not by any means
necessary, and it may be something quite different. Whenever, for instance, as we have shown, the defeat of
the enemy is not the only means to attain the political object, whenever there are other objects which may be
pursued as the aim in a War, then it follows of itself that such other objects may become the object of
particular acts of Warfare, and therefore also the object of combats.
But even those combats which, as subordinate acts, are in the strict sense devoted to the destruction of the
enemy's fighting force need not have that destruction itself as their first object.
If we think of the manifold parts of a great armed force, of the number of circumstances which come into
activity when it is employed, then it is clear that the combat of such a force must also require a manifold
organisation, a subordinating of parts and formation. There may and must naturally arise for particular parts a
number of objects which are not themselves the destruction of the enemy's armed force, and which, while
they certainly contribute to increase that destruction, do so only in an indirect manner. If a battalion is
ordered to drive the enemy from a rising ground, or a bridge, then properly the occupation of any such
locality is the real object, the destruction of the enemy's armed force which takes place only the means or
secondary matter. If the enemy can be driven away merely by a demonstration, the object is attained all the
same; but this hill or bridge is, in point of fact, only required as a means of increasing the gross amount of
loss inflicted on the enemy's armed force. It is the case on the field of battle, much more must it be so on the
whole theatre of war, where not only one Army is opposed to another, but one State, one Nation, one whole
country to another. Here the number of possible relations, and consequently possible combinations, is much
greater, the diversity of measures increased, and by the gradation of objects, each subordinate to another the
first means employed is further apart from the ultimate object.
It is therefore for many reasons possible that the object of a combat is not the destruction of the enemy's
force, that is, of the force immediately opposed to us, but that this only appears as a means. But in all such
cases it is no longer a question of complete destruction, for the combat is here nothing else but a measure of
strength--has in itself no value except only that of the present result, that is, of its decision.
But a measuring of strength may be effected in cases where the opposing sides are very unequal by a mere
comparative estimate. In such cases no fighting will take place, and the weaker will immediately give way.
If the object of a combat is not always the destruction of the enemy's forces therein engaged--and if its
object can often be attained as well without the combat taking place at all, by merely making a resolve to
fight, and by the circumstances to which this resolution gives rise-- then that explains how a whole
campaign may be carried on with great activity without the actual combat playing any notable part in it. [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]