“Personal Teleology of War”

A Philosophy of War Terminal Paper

Presented to the Faculty of
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
Headquarters Academic Group
Philippine Military ACademy
Baguio City

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Course
HISTORY OF MILITARY THOUGHTS
(HMT 431)

CDT 1CL JULIUS ADRIAN D DEL PRADO C-20132 CCAFP

17 September 2019
A. Introduction
 The paper is about my own belief and understanding regarding war
as a whole. The personal theology of war is intended for the readers to have
an insight as to what is the definition, purpose, objective, nature, and
character of war from a personal perspective. It would cover many
different topics wherein the reader may find interesting to note.

The thesis of the subject as a whole could be fairly summarized in a

definition by a European military Strategist, “War is nothing more than the
continuation of politics by other means” (Clausewitz). Having conflict of
ideas is inevitable even if it is in a large scale. Leaders of a nation would use
the military as a coercive force to make the enemy agree to whatever it is
they want to happen. Take for example the Crusades. Religious wars are
mainly rooted in the difference of their beliefs. It is for this reason that
Christian nations grouped together in an effort to occupy the city of
Jerusalem and to fervently impose their belief against the islam faith. Many
more examples can be observed throughout history. What is important to
note is that nations would use war as another channel to achieve their
political goal in the event where a peaceful dialogue is unsuccessful.

The theories and insights to be discussed, whether you know it or not,

is of relevance to the lives of the readers. War does not simply contain costly
conflicts, violent aftermaths and such; There is wisdom behind every action
and reaction in the conduct of war. It is for this reason that many scholars
study the causes, effects and conduct of war. It goes without saying that
there is a myriad of theories revolving around the latter. My own theories
would help others understand the subject matter in their conduct of the
study of war. The paper provides another perspective one can look through
which may pave the way for realizations and insights.

B. The Teleology Of War and Its Strategic Object

 War is a premeditated campaign in the endeavour of
achieving a political goal. It is important to understand and recognize war
and peace. It is because it involves everyone. War, as we know it, affects
a multitude of individuals. Understanding how war works allows us to
conceptualize a course of action to mitigate it in-order to achieve peace.

As defined in an online dictionary, “War is a state of armed conflict

between different groups within a country.” War entails many unfortunate
consequences and events such as collateral damages, internally
displaced persons (IDP), and the like. While “Peace is freedom from
disturbance; tranquility”.

War is not an end in itself, it is merely an event wherein different end

points are endeavoured; however the absence of war doesn’t necessarily
mean peace as how it was defined previously. There is such a thing as
negative peace wherein many other factors do not allow a nation to enjoy
freedom from disturbance. Positive peace is improbably given the idealistic
concept.

As defined in the online dictionary, “War is a sustained campaign

against an undesirable situation or activity.” War is a continuation of politics
as many early military theorists might have already mentioned. As observed
in world history, It is the result of unsuccessful between two or more
contradicting groups. Military force is used in order to coerce another to
the former’s interests.

Since war is an extenuation of politics, its objective and purpose is to

achieve the political objective. If a nation seeks to gain control of a
advantageous territory currently occupied by an enemy, war could ensue
from the use of military force in attaining this political goal.

“Everything in was is simple but the simplest thing is difficult. The

difficulties accumulate and end by producing a kind of friction that is
inconceivable unless one has experienced war.” (Clausewitz). The nature
of war is an unchanging essence. It did not change from what it was before
when it started to what it is at the present time. It is violent and interactive.
Passion and primordial violence can observed in all events in human history.
It is simple to understand yet it does not end there. Despite its simplicity, war
involves complexities that one may not comprehend with the absence of
experience.

The Character of war is different than that of its nature. The Character
of war changes as time progresses. What may be observed before may not
be present especially in the modern era where the facets of war have
drastically evolved. War is ever-changing which is manifested on how it is
conducted today. Surely we could not expect infantry men in the middle
ages using high powered firearms commonly used by the modern soldier.

In the conduct of war, it is important to emphasize that there is a point

in the enemy’s organization which should be targeted. If the enemy is
shattered at that point, the whole structure of national structure will
collapse. Clausewitz’ Center of gravity gives us an idea as to which why this
would happen. In his theory, the order of targets should be arranged in this
manner; leadership, organic essentials, infrastructure, population and
fielded forces. If one were to incapacitate the enemy’s leadership, it would
be easier to coerce the enemy to surrender for they would be like a wolf
pack without its alpha wolf commander.

According to my notes, strategy is about winning wars; a rational

process; it is more of an art than science. It is the essential link between
political objectives and military force between ends and means. On the
other hand, tactics is the use of fight forces in combat. It is important to
note the strategy-tactics nexus because they are intertwined. The linkage
provided is for the final objective of war which is to achieve national
policies.

In war, it is essential for a military force to consider certain elements

and functions in order to achieve an advantage over the enemy. Taking
note of War-fighting functions allows the fielded force to better prepare
themselves prior to engagement. Fielded forces should take note of these
functions as follows; Leadership, information, movement and maneuver,
intelligence, fires, sustainment, mission command and protection. Putting
 these functions in consideration allows the fielded force to apply maximum
combat power.

However so previously implied, one should stay on the defensive

position with a counterattack in reserve when in war. Having a well fortified
position is the superior approach to war for being on the offensive is an
arduous endeavour to sustain. Take for example the “Blitzkrieg” Strategy of
the German Forces during World War 2. It was effective at first for it allowed
the German Forces to plow through western Europe; however, its efficiency
began to decline as time progresses. Protracted war is costly enough but
to blaze through even more would present a huge problem.

War is the means to an end. In the political realm, it is used in cases

where diplomatic dialogues fail. Nations would use this as a tool to achieve
political goals. In the modern era, we can see that many nations invest in
their military department most notably the US. We can see that they do not
only invest in one branch of service but the others as well. Joint operations
today have become a superior strategy for a single branch of service may
not perform as well as it can when joined in by other services that could
provide more variables during operation.

It is a good thing today that majority of the world is enlightened to

live a life free from war. Nations should seek peace and justice; however,
this present many complexities. Whatever the latter is, a nation should seek
not in participating in protracted conflict for no one would benefit from it.
Conditions that would be fair and just for all parties should be pursued;
however, it is still saddening to know that war remains a viable option for
many nation despite the costs it presents. It is because of its coercive force
that would compel enemies to submit.

C. Causes of War

People fight for many reasons. One of these reasons is the disagreement
between two or more groups. Take for example the terrorist insurgency in the
Philippines. These rebels do not agree with the Government which is why they
coerce the Armed Forces of the Philippines to engage them in irregular warfare.
Another reason is its power. Strong nations that seek to expand its territory engage
in war for the enemy to submit to its will.

War cannot be eradicated ever. It is because of the primordial violence

that is a part of our human nature. It can only be prevented or merely delayed
by friendly forces. Education and
Civil Military Operations can only do so much enlightenment.

Religious wars such as that of the crusades before and the islamic
insurgency present today are a tricky subject to tackle. If we look at each side,
they have good faith; however, the confusing part is why they are still fighting
against each other. The reason here is the same as aforementioned above. When
two or more dogmatic groups have a difference in beliefs, it is not surprising that
they would resort to causing wars.

War seems to be a futile undertaking given the costs; however, sometimes

it is necessary for us to participate in war. Take for example, Nazi Germany. It is
well known that they discriminate everyone who is not part of the Aryan Race. If
we allowed them to win, it would become a problem for everyone who was not
part of the said race. Sometimes all of us have to do something evil for the benefit
of the majority.

D. The Political-Military Nexus

War is a political instrument that is used by nations in order to achieve

national policies; however so intertwined, they are distinct and should not be
overextended over one another. Military and Political leaders should have a
dialogue with regards to one main strategy. The Political leaders provide the
policies or determines the objectives to be met the strategy. Military leaders
provide strategies and tactics via use of fight forces in combat as a means to
obtain a political end. Both should stay in their place. Simply knowing your job
and doing it well is already enough. This is because of a simple reason that one
should stay in their area of expertise. Crossing over areas which are unfamiliar may
cost a massive price to pay. An example of these over-extensions are instances
when military-minded leaders try to take up a position in the government which is
unfamiliar to them and Political leaders trying to lead an army despite its lack of
training.

E. Morality and War

Supposedly, War is moral considering that every soldier is only performing its
duty to its nation without necessarily having anything against the enemy. These
are observable with the standard operating procedures in war such as the White
Flag of Truce, Surrendering, and other standard operating procedures in the field.
Taking up arms is morally justifiable when it is not self serving. One should always
resort to this only when there is enough reason to use it. The Laws of war should
be absolute and should not be simply overridden. There is wisdom behind every
law and fielded forces must be understanding about it. Although, attacking
civilians presents a coercive force against the enemy government, it should be
avoided at all cost because there is no need for others to be involved in such a
frowned upon event.

It is therefore essential for strategic leaders to have jus ad bellum - the right
to go to war and jus in bello - right conduct in war. These impact the strategic
leaders significantly because they would have to adjust their strategy according
to these principles. One should not simply go to war for every conflict, there should
be a set of criteria which would determine if war really is a necessary channel to
go to. One should also have the right conduct or behaviour during war for it is
already a significant detriment in itself.

There are responsibilities of occupying forces in every aftermath of war,

these are included in jus ad bellum. Occupying forces should ensure that the
status quo of the occupied territory should not be reduced as much as possible.
It is important to note that if one cannot keep it, war should not be pushed
through. This is the same for weapons of mass destruction. It is against the principle
of proportionality where the weapons used must be levelled with its targets. For
example, one should not use nuclear bombs on a small town that does not
present any significant danger. One should always weigh the consequences of
their actions. Even if the end would justify the means, one should not take the
means so lightly as to completely forget all other moral principles that is
fundamental to our being.

F. Conclusion

War is the result of two or more groups that have conflict in dialogue. It is a
premeditated event where fielded forces are used for the object of attaining a
political endeavour. Nations use it as an extension of their political goals. Politics
and Military have this intertwined relationship despite their distinction; however so
needed, leaders should always ingrain amongst themselves the principles of
morality for everyone is affect by war

As an afterthought, it is important for us to be well informed of our history

and warfare for it would present us lessons that will allow us to do better in the
future. Many have already said that history will repeat itself if we do not learn from
it. It goes without saying that for everything we do, must reflect back on whatever
it is we will even in the simplest instance.