A common observation as well on the Revolutionary and Napoleon’s wars was how much war based upon the levee en masse armies which relied upon foraging was so much more violent and excessive compared to the previous wars of the age of reason with smaller armies supported by networks of fortress supply depots. Of course that period itself was a reaction to the excesses of The Thirty Years War that devastated much of Germany. History supports his point that the longer a war continues the more violent it becomes.
I am reminded of chess games where, when faced with a bewilderingly complex position where good moves are hard to find, novice players will resign themselves to simply trade a piece rather than rack their brains in search for a path forward
The best work on this particular theme is "Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany" by Isabel V. Hull. Hull quite convincingly demonstrates both how the tendency towards dysfunctional violence emerged from the culture and beliefs of the Imperial German Army, and the negative strategic consequences that flowed from this dysfunction. It also has some very disquieting parallels to several negative trends in contemporary military thinking today.
Your question here is entirely about great slaughters committed by states because they _erroneously_ concluded these were in their interests. But what about slaughters committed by states - or, rather, their agents - because they correctly concluded these slaughters were in the interests of those making the decision?
Note of course that the decision makers may be furthering their own interests at the expense of the state's interests.
At the moment, I'm entertaining the hypothesis that some quantity of American decision makers enjoy slaughter for its own sake, perhaps because it makes them feel powerful, or masculine, or similar. Others simply place zero value on the health, safety, and happiness of large numbers of people (e.g. all Iranians), so don't mind indulging the first group unless there are significant other negative consequences.
Add to this the probably erroneous belief that if "we" kill enough of them, any survivors will become "our" humble obedient servants. Or failing that, once we exterminate the lot of them, "we" can use the land they occupied for vacation resorts, golf courses, and similar profit-making opportunities.
If those with these beliefs get their way, we'll find out eventually whether the United States gets away with it, or finds itself with new and more effective enemies as a direct result. FWIW, a lot of past empires have gotten away with this sort of thing. So I don't know for sure whether the sociopaths and sadists making these decisions are in fact correct.
You’re right that I’m using “interest” in this case as Clausewitz does, to refer to state or national interest rather than personal interest.
This is largely addressed this towards the end of the article, where I refer to passions overcoming the reason of the leadership, or a deficiency in intellect as explanations for pursuing slaughter as policy. I would count ego or insecurity as the former.
A common observation as well on the Revolutionary and Napoleon’s wars was how much war based upon the levee en masse armies which relied upon foraging was so much more violent and excessive compared to the previous wars of the age of reason with smaller armies supported by networks of fortress supply depots. Of course that period itself was a reaction to the excesses of The Thirty Years War that devastated much of Germany. History supports his point that the longer a war continues the more violent it becomes.
I am reminded of chess games where, when faced with a bewilderingly complex position where good moves are hard to find, novice players will resign themselves to simply trade a piece rather than rack their brains in search for a path forward
“War is hell.“ General Sherman
The best work on this particular theme is "Absolute Destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany" by Isabel V. Hull. Hull quite convincingly demonstrates both how the tendency towards dysfunctional violence emerged from the culture and beliefs of the Imperial German Army, and the negative strategic consequences that flowed from this dysfunction. It also has some very disquieting parallels to several negative trends in contemporary military thinking today.
Very much agree
https://deadcarl.substack.com/p/clausewitz-on-hegseth-and-the-lethality
Your question here is entirely about great slaughters committed by states because they _erroneously_ concluded these were in their interests. But what about slaughters committed by states - or, rather, their agents - because they correctly concluded these slaughters were in the interests of those making the decision?
Note of course that the decision makers may be furthering their own interests at the expense of the state's interests.
At the moment, I'm entertaining the hypothesis that some quantity of American decision makers enjoy slaughter for its own sake, perhaps because it makes them feel powerful, or masculine, or similar. Others simply place zero value on the health, safety, and happiness of large numbers of people (e.g. all Iranians), so don't mind indulging the first group unless there are significant other negative consequences.
Add to this the probably erroneous belief that if "we" kill enough of them, any survivors will become "our" humble obedient servants. Or failing that, once we exterminate the lot of them, "we" can use the land they occupied for vacation resorts, golf courses, and similar profit-making opportunities.
If those with these beliefs get their way, we'll find out eventually whether the United States gets away with it, or finds itself with new and more effective enemies as a direct result. FWIW, a lot of past empires have gotten away with this sort of thing. So I don't know for sure whether the sociopaths and sadists making these decisions are in fact correct.
You’re right that I’m using “interest” in this case as Clausewitz does, to refer to state or national interest rather than personal interest.
This is largely addressed this towards the end of the article, where I refer to passions overcoming the reason of the leadership, or a deficiency in intellect as explanations for pursuing slaughter as policy. I would count ego or insecurity as the former.