The Culture of War

The apparent purpose for this book is to argue against Clausewitz's famous dictum that war is an extension of politics by other means. By denying vociferously (in fact before each major portion of the book) that war is a means to an end and is undertaken based on a rational cost-benefit analysis, van Creveld seems to be implying that war is an end in itself, perhaps because it is the best way of perpetuating and casting light on the verities of human existence. His argument is only partially refuted by the fact that we have not had a general war since 1945 (by which I mean one involving all major powers at the same time), which would inevitably have resulted in the destruction of modern civilization, if not humanity itself. The book is divided into five major parts. The first three are about how the culture of war makes possible respectively the preparation for war, the actual fighting of war, and the response to/commemoration of war. These segments contained neither major surprises nor major flaws. The best argument in them is that while there are many reasons (not generally susceptible to moral judgment) why men fight, the closest they ever come to fighting for what drives the politicians who order them into battle is a suprarational "cause" divorced from the cost-benefit analysis that drives the politicians. The fourth dissects the possibility of a world without war (Chapter 13, "The Waning of Major War," is about the impact of nuclear weapons) and the fifth is about the threats to the culture of war, of which van Creveld identifies four: the wild horde, the soulless machine, "men without chests" and feminism. I found part five to be not only the most compelling but the most surprising. Chapter 19, the chapter on "men without chests," is actually about Western anti-Semitism. It does not take a genius to deduce that the modern military posture of the state of Israel is in part a response to this phenomenon, but I have never seen the argument presented (actually implied) quite as subtly or winningly as van Creveld does here. Chapter 20, the chapter on feminism, was the most unexpected in the entire book. Feminism has had many incarnations in modern history, but the current one tends to reject war altogether as the glue which holds patriarchy in place. Yet this phenomenon -- women turning against all war for all causes -- is considered by van Creveld worthy of only two paragraphs, which would lead most feminists, I suspect, to state that he hasn't really grappled with their argument. Far more dangerous according to him is the idea of letting women fight -- or more specifically, trying to train them to fight, which is a sure way to debase the entire culture of war.

This book goes against the popular grain about war. So many today define war as a function of machines and CNN clips. They forget about that war is so much more than just what is on TV. It involves machines, people, and lost lives. The book really offers and old definition of war against this TV image that people today have totally forgotten. This book for sure will cause you to think. People will an interest in military affairs will like this book. People without that connection might get lost in the details but should read it anyway. The book talks about what War is via multiple different ways. He uses a historical lenses set against different aspects of society to really understand war. Martin Van Creveld tries to explain how War has, and must have the human touch. He explains this as seen through its impact in recent wars, through art, through culture, roles, and etc... This method really will cause a person to say "oh yeah" that is true or that point is like this or that. This book will teach you the human in the equation is all so important. He shapes things for good or for bad. The author uses historical examples to teach the point. This idea isn't new, but it is for some in today's world. They seek a technical explanation for war or they think man has evolved past war. I personally find that the most humorous. All a person needs to do is pick up a newspaper and see how our technology hasn't solved Iraq or anything else. A lot of people today need to realize that message. So few have any contact with the military. However everyone is quick to send bombs here and there in hope it solves problems. Many times it only creates new problems. The author goes one to explain why we need a military culture. The culture or human part is the critical part to national security. If a nation doesn't realize that today will reap the penalties tomorrow. A nation will either not be about to defend its nation or be to quick to unleash the dogs of war without any consideration to the costs. This book has lots of facts and stories. The book gets long in parts. You need to read the whole book to get the impact. It is worth the work.

In Greek myth the jurisdiction over war is divided. Athena Nike, as governess over the arts, crafts, and sciences is in charge of victory as a corrallary to being in charge of strategy and statecraft. Ares is in charge of war in itself-he likes the fury of war for it's own sake. And while many historians, understandably prefer to study Athena Nike, this book is devoted to studying the ways of Ares. It has been said that war is an extention of politics. That is in a sense true, in so far as the one who gives the orders for the commencement of hostilities is usually a politician and therefore inspired by political motives. However it is less true that people fight for politics. People fight for more important things like duty, honor, country, faith, friends, family, comrades-in-arms and so on. And if these things are "delusions" as cynics say, it might be pointed out that much of cynicism is itself a delusion and not the most pleasant of them. The book gives an overview of the customs of warriors throughout history and the recuring themes. It shows how the culture of fighting men, the subtle(and not so subtle) ways in which they boast of their prowess and assert their right to be recognized as men-among-men is has much in common worldwide. It gives examples of such things as traditions, decorations, and what not, all designed to give the suspicion that people do to some degree like to fight. It shows how no matter how far apart cultures are in technology or customs, some things remain the same(this struck me in the Movie Zulu when the Zulus were singing their war songs and the Welsh were singing "Men of Harlech" in reply). Much of the points in the book of course I take for granted, have been a member of the "civilian" part of the culture of war sense the first time I read a war-story or played my first wargame. The book by the way sheds some light on this, telling about reenactors, wargamers and the like. Some would deplore the "culture of war" and say it should be removed. But it is part of life and not the worst part. The disadvantage of the book from my point of view are twofold is that I desired cultural history and thus the authors personal opinions were an annoying distraction. Another disadvantage is that Crevald can be an annoying writter at times. One advantage it does have is it is lacking in cant. Crevald never states that he really, really hates war even though he makes a living off of it and writes about it with an obvious relish. In fact he gives a rather Pattonesque feeling which some might find irritating but is at least a change of pace. In any case his point is taken, that war has it's own culture and aspects of it cross through time and space.