Mary Kaldor on War

Tell me about the Clausewitz book.

Well, this is the sort of Bible of military strategists. Clausewitz was a Prussian soldier who fought in the Napoleonic wars (1799-1815) and this had a transformative effect on him. He got a job at the defence academy and wanted to write a theory of war but he never actually finished it. He died in 1831 not having finished On War, but his widow put it together for him. It has had an enormous impact and really is the Bible of war.

His theory of war is that it is the essence of war to go to the very extremes. War is an act of violence designed to force our will on our opponent. It is only if you put absolutely everything into this effort that you can win. Absolute war is an ideal concept and it is different from real war. In real war, the tendency to fight to extremes is moderated by politics or by what he called “friction” – weather, logistics, accident, etc. Clausewitz argued that Napoleon had demonstrated that absolute war could be a reality. He describes war as involving “the trinity” – you have reason (the government), chance and strategy (the generals) and passion and emotion (the people). Napoleon married passion to reason, thereby mobilising the people, and so war reached its absolute point. Clausewitz said that war was the instrument of politics, like a language, but rather than writing notes you fight battles. The question is – are we still Clausewitzian?

Are we?

No. But military people love him and say that you can be Clausewitzian even if not all wars are extreme. Other people think we have become post-Clausewitzian and the First and Second World Wars were the most absolute.

So, is Clausewitz saying that absolute war is a good thing? That Napoleon was a good thing? Is it a kind of manual?

He thought Napoleon was just amazing. There is lots of manual in it. For example, he says there’s an asymmetry in war in that the defence is always stronger than offence. You need more power to attack than to defend because defence can retreat and wear down the offence. But he did think that “the Mighty Sword of Vengeance” would have to be used in the end, that you mustn’t be squeamish. He is often used to justify annihilation.

Do you agree?

I think his definition of war is wrong. For him war is a contest of wills using violence. I think it is still framed like that but it isn’t always the case. Often the violence of war is legitimised in terms of the conflict when really it is a mutual enterprise. If you look at the Cold War or the War on Terror, both sides need an enemy and are really interested in other things. And if the war is a kind of mutual enterprise it goes on for much longer. In Yugoslavia the Serbs and the Croats basically wanted to carve up territory and in Iraq the Sunnis and the Shias are doing the same, and, rather than fighting battles, they were killing ordinary people.

What about the Michael Walzer book?

This is another classic. He is a philosopher and he wrote it after the Vietnam war (1959-1975), asking the question – is war ever just? There is a long history of literature on what counts as a just war. Essentially, just war as a policy goes back to St Augustine. The early Christians were pacifists, but when the Roman Empire converted to Christianity in 312AD they needed a way of justifying war. Jus in bello – is the cause just? Jus ad bellum – is it fought justly and is it authorised by a right authority – the King or whatever? The fascinating thing in the Middle Ages was that there were two types of war – Just and Holy. A Just War was authorised by the prince or the monarch and had to be fought consistently with church rules. A Holy War was authorised by the Pope and there were no rules. So, when the crusaders sacked Jerusalem in 1099 it wasn’t, as lots of people think, because they were outside of Europe, it was because it was a Holy War.

The just cause nowadays, according to Walzer, is self-defence against aggression.

Are there other rules of war outlined in the Walzer book?

Yes. There is the distinction between the non-combatant and the combatant. Non-combatants, such as prisoners of war, old men, women and children, are to be protected and there are all kinds of rules about what we now call “collateral damage” which means that the collateral damage has to be proportionate – the cause has to be worthwhile enough that it doesn’t matter if you kill a few people. What Walzer does is to outline a set of principles that have been developed over centuries.

Do you think there can be causes worthwhile enough?

I don’t think wars are ever legitimate, but I think there can be a justification for the use of force. For example, genocide. I think it is justifiable to use force to protect people from genocide. You wouldn’t, for example, as NATO did in Kosovo, use bombs to protect people. You would risk your life on the ground and go in to help. There is a big difference between thinking “My goal is to defeat the enemy that inflicts genocide,” and “My goal is to protect people who are victims of genocide.” I think it needs to be more like policing.