What Strategic Theory do you believe best explains the nature and conduct of War in 21st century?

br What Strategic Theory do you believe best explains the nature and conduct of War in 21st century ? Strategic Theory

Given the sea-change in warfare which has seemingly taken place since the publication of Clausewitz "On War " in the first half of the nineteenth century , it is logical to wonder whether or not the principles detailed in "On War " comprise a suitable framework for discussion of modern warfare . Interestingly enough , Clausewitz himself divided the elements of war into distinctive categories : objective and subjective with which he hoped to describe "those elements or

qualities that every war has in common (such as friction and chance " as "objective " while "subjective " was used to infer "those qualities that vary from war to war , such as the types of armed forces employed and their weapons and tactics " This distinction demonstrate that Clausewitz intended for hsi theories to bridge the gaps in time between his articulation of them and a later reading or study of his principles (Echevarria and Gray 2005

That said , it remains quite al to ask : what role do Clausewitz 's exhaustive theories on war play in modern considerations of warfare and also , do Clausewitz 's theories regarding war provide any useful paradigms or wisdom regarding the projection of warfare into humanity 's future , beyond even our own contemporary times ? To complicate matters though Clausewitz did distinguish between "objective " and "subjective elements in warfare , nowhere did he "that the objective nature of war does not or cannot change " on the contrary : Clausewitz seems to suggest that warfare is "more than a simple chameleon that only partially changes its nature from case to case " with the implication that while there may be some definite underlying principles of warfare which extend unchanged to some degree throughout history , these aspects may also "change color " and not prove as reliably predicted or abstracted as one would hope (Echevarria and Gray 2005

Before probing the densities of Clausewitz 's specific theories and principles of warfare as explicated in On War for their possible or probable relevance to present or future wars , it will prove useful to specifically determine just what aspects of modern warfare present the most challenging paradigm through which to view the theories presented in On War . To begin , Kaldor 's the idea of "old " wars versus "new " wars is a relatively simple categorization : with "old " standing for a "stereotyped version of war , drawn from the experience of the last two centuries in Europe , in which war consisted of a conflict between two symmetrical warring parties , generally states or proto-states with legitimate interests " and "new " wars standing for forms of war which adhere to asymmetrical models and produce more ambiguous forms of victory and defeat

Another distinction between "old " wars and "new " wars is that of potential destructiveness with "the increase in the destructiveness and accuracy of all forms of military technology , as a consequence of the Clausewitzean logic of extremes " foisting an era which has made "symmetrical war , war between similarly armed opponents , increasingly difficult...