This post is part of the Principles of War series. See the introductory post or browse all posts with the principles of war tag.
In the conduct of war as a whole and in every operation of war it is essential to select and clearly define the aim. The ultimate aim is to break the enemy’s will to fight. Each phase of the war and each separate operation must be directed towards this supreme aim, but will have a more limited aim, which must be clearly defined, simple and direct. Once the aim is decided, all efforts must be directed to its attainment until a changed situation calls for a re-appreciation and consequently a new aim. Every plan or action must be tested by its bearing on the chosen aim.
The Selection and Maintenance of the Aim must be regarded as the “Master” Principle. It has therefore been placed first. The remaining principles are not given in any particular order, since their relative importance will vary according to the nature of the operation in question.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « From Celtic Britannia to England
- » Germany ‘NSA” Update
COMMENTS / 11 COMMENTS
tdaxp » Blog Archive » 5GW / xGW around the blogosphere added these pithy words on May 22 08 at 3:49 am[...] at Coming Anarchy described war having “the ultimatum aim of having to break the enemy’s will to fight.” This definition defines 0GW (aimed at exterminating the enemy) and 5GW (aimed at preventing [...]
Younghusband added these pithy words on 22 May 08 at 7:53 pmWell, this one is pretty obvious. However, the “ultimate aim” mentioned above could be argued. Clausewitz said “your sole purpose is to bend the enemy to your will,” which is nice and vague. Your enemy does not even have to give up his will to fight, if you are able to achieve your Aim. However, old Clausy also said: “The only sure way of obtaining this object is to destroy his armed forces.”
Depending on the time and the war, the “ultimate aim” may change, however the conduct of war still requires an aim or goal, possibly even moreso in this age of democracy and mass media.
purpleslog added these pithy words on 22 May 08 at 11:18 pm“break the enemy’s will to fight”
This sounds like a possible “means”, not an “ends” to me.
The aim/ends of war is get your adversary to do something they would not otherwise do.
Ralph Hitchens added these pithy words on 23 May 08 at 1:27 pmI disagree with purpleslog, it surely is an end rather than a means, but begs the question of whether it is an achievable end in all circumstances. I think breaking the enemy’s capability to fight might be the ultimate aim in many cases. Like, say, the GWOT.
Michael added these pithy words on 24 May 08 at 3:53 amI have to agree with Purpleslog. In the case of GWOT, the reason we wish to reduce the enemy’s capability to fight is their demonstrable desire to use that ability against us. If they did not have that desire which- obviously- they are disinclined to give up, we would not have a reason to reduce their capability.
That said, it’s always possible for an entity to have more ends than are revealed—all of which effect the means being used.
purpleslog added these pithy words on 24 May 08 at 5:24 pmRalph…okay you have either:
1) broken the will of the enemy to fight (the principle of the post)
2) broken the enemy’s capability to fight (mentioned in your comment)Then what?
There is a something else comes next. That something else is the aim.
BTW, points (1) and (2) above are not the same thing.
Joe Jones added these pithy words on 27 May 08 at 2:03 amCan anyone think of an instance where an enemy’s capability to fight was really broken? I’m going through various scenarios in my head, and (short of genocide) I don’t see how you can effectively break the capability to fight. It’s just too easy to fight: it doesn’t require much in the way of equipment, just a lot of will and “destructive creativity.”
I’m not saying you can’t eliminate an enemy’s capability to, say, project naval power or nuke a continent. That’s obviously doable. But a person with sufficient will can fight to the death, regardless of which weapons you take away, and in this age they have more and more insidious ways to do so. I think that supports the general notion that you want to break their will, not their capability (keeping in mind that breaking capability can be an important step in breaking will).
Oliver added these pithy words on 27 May 08 at 2:03 pmThird Punic War, maybe the fall of Constantinople.
Will, as a mental ability, is in principle outside external influence. If the enemy does not wish to give up, you will have to go to elimination.
Michael added these pithy words on 27 May 08 at 11:26 pmThat’s where it comes back to the question of aims. As you’ve said, Joe, there’s no way short of annihilation to completely eliminate an enemy’s ability to fight. One can, however, eliminate the portion of their ability that allows them to oppose your aims.
Joe Jones added these pithy words on 28 May 08 at 3:39 am“Will, as a mental ability, is in principle outside external influence.”
If only it were…
Oliver added these pithy words on 28 May 08 at 3:59 pmThis depends on your aims. If you aim to occupy and settle your enemy’s homeland, good luck with that approach.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated.
