Supplementary Reading
163
a difficulty is clear. All that is essentially inherent in the conception of war seems to fly from it, and it is in danger of being left without any point of support. … All military art then turns itself into mere prudence.'[1]
War as an instrument of policy:
'War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means. We say, mixed with other means, in order thereby to maintain at the same time that this political intercourse does not cease by the war itself, is not changed into something quite different, but that, in its essence, it continues to exist, whatever may be the form of the means which it uses, and that the chief Nines on which the events of the war progress, and to which they are attached, are only the general features of policy which run all through the war until peace is made. … Is not war merely another kind of writing and language for political thoughts? It has certainly a grammar of its own, but its logic is not peculiar to itself. … That the political point of view should end completely when war begins, is only conceivable in contests which are wars of life and death, from pure hatred. … The subordination of the political point of view to the military would be contrary to common sense, for policy has declared the war; it is the intelligent faculty, war only the instrument, not the reverse. … The art of war in its highest point of view is policy, but, no doubt, a policy which fights battles, instead of writing notes. … It is only when policy promises itself a wrong effect from certain military means and measures, an effect opposed to their nature, that it can exercise a prejudicial effect on war by the course it prescribes. … This has happened times without end, and it shows that a certain knowledge of the nature of war is essential to the management of political commerce. … If war is to harmonise entirely with the political views and policy, to accommodate itself to the means available for war, there is only one alternative to be recommended when the statesman and soldier are not combined in one person, which is to make the chief commander a member of the cabinet, that he may take part in its councils
- ↑ Ibid., iii, pp. 64–5.
