War and Conflict: A Historical and Political Perspective

This article provides a historical and political perspective on war and conflict. It discusses the works of Carl Von Clausewitz, the Weinberger Doctrine, the Korean War, and the Just War theory. It also examines the counter-terrorism policies of Australia and the UK.

Running Head: QUESTION ANSWER
QUESTION ANSWER
Name of the Student:
Name of University:
Author Note:

1QUESTION ANSWER
Q1.
Carl Von Clausewitz was one of the famous experts on war. As a professional soldier,
later general in the Prussian army Clausewitz was deeply moved by the Napoleonic art of war. It
was published posthumously in 1832. The book was a vast account of historical examples and
warfare strategies. It can be argued that despite of having the patronage of the Prussian monarch
Fredrick II, Clausewitz was primarily focused on the prowess and smart tactics used by
Napoleon himself. Therefore, the book was generally a guidebook of conduct of war. In those
vast accounts and manuscripts Clausewitz reflected the principles of war and according to him
there was no general principle that could decide the warfare. In the research of Howard and Paret
(1976) the book ‘On War’ shared a great deal of light on the definition and real motive of war.
Based on this, it can be asserted that defining war as a political act would curb down the vitality
of war. Clausewitz stated that war is a real political instrument that can facilitated the process of
political commerce. It is further coupled with the organisational policy. However, it should be
kept in mind that in the book organisation connoted the notion of regime or rule rather than the
post-modern perception of the government. Besides this, Scheipers (2017) advocated that
Clausewitz’s accounts rightly pointed out the purpose of war in two facets, one is related to meet
the political objective and another puts emphasis on the motive to disarm the enemy.
Q2.
The Weinberger Doctrine was enforced on the backdrop of the havoc defeat of US army
in Vietnam. It was backed another two major military set back in the history of US army such as
the Beirut barracks bombing in 1983 and the invasion of Granada the same year. Based on the
failure and indecision within the administration and the military motive, US Defence Secretary

2QUESTION ANSWER
Caspar Weinberg publicly proposed the Weinberger Doctrine in 1984 with the proposition that
US military never commit any forces unless it hurts the national interest or threatening the
security of the allies (Handel, 2016). Moreover, for a better communication with the political
decision making and the military strategies Weinberger proposed that US military must follow
the voice and opinion of the US Congress and also participate in international military
occupation with the support of the US public opinion. As a result of that the Weinberger
Doctrine staged a bridge between the popular response and the responsibility of the US military
occupation in foreign soil. On the other hand, the Powell Doctrine can be identified as a brief and
concise version of the Weinberger Doctrine with the same purpose to deal with the US national
security interests and the capabilities to make it a success (Anderson 2014). General Colin
Powell was the successor of Weinberger and revised the Weinberger doctrine to a little extent by
incorporating the popular support more extensively. It was formulated on the backdrop of Gulf
War in 1990s. The Powel Doctrine made the US army and the policy makers more accountable
for the victory in the war and as a result of that it generated more transparency in the military
culture within US army.
Q3.
In context of this statement of US President Eisenhower is apparently seemed to point out
the negation of war and conflict. However, it is important to understand that the statement had a
fathom of understanding related to the nuclear war. On the backdrop of the nuclear proliferation
and the advancement of thermonuclear it became evident that a third world war would be
unleashed after the just end of Second World War. During the Cold War phase, a politico-
ideological threat between USSR and USA paved the way for another war-time situation where
nuclear attack had become an obvious annihilation of mankind. According to Gavin (2015) the

3QUESTION ANSWER
fear of the nuclear proliferation was at its peak during the 1950s, changing the entire scenario of
the warfare. In the words of Polsky (2015) the advent of the nuclear war changed the course of
the conventional war. As a result of that it becomes an insignificant matter to make the world
defend properly. In response to this, Eisenhower also argued about the course of world politics
where the impact of nuclear war would lead to the verge of an apocalypse where no logic or
strategy was implemented to defend the country or the people. In this regard, the perception of
victory or defeat also became irrelevant and international relation was also transformed a lot
where the traditional perception regarding of war, strategy, defence and political cohesion did
not have any sense. From that point of view, it can be stated that this statement had a strong
message towards the threat of nuclear power as a weapon of mass destruction.
Q4. Brian JohnstoneCSsR, `The War on Terrorism: a Just War?’,StudiaMoralia 40 (2002), 49 ff.
As far as the Just War theory propounded by St. Augustine, it can be stated the theory
was more of a moral code or ethics that will legitimise the cause of war. As a matter of fact, the
Just War principles are directly belonged to the Christian theological perspective that connoted
the moral justification behind the aggrandisement. In fact, the crucial factor behind the role of
war in society has also been stated with reference to the proposition of good and evil. From that
point of view, it can be argued that in the ancient or the so called classical period in European
history war was treated as a tool to subjugate over the evil practices (Zwitter and Hoelzl, 2014).
Therefore, in course of the discussion, the just-war concept of St. Augustine has come to get a
clear perception regarding the solidification of the means of war. In course of this understanding,
it can be stated that the growing demand for commercialisation has changed the aspect of war
extensively. Nowadays, war is not just restricted itself within the spectrum of just cause there are
more calculative means and practices behind a war that is coupled with a great number of

4QUESTION ANSWER
factors. As a matter of fact, Parry (2015) argued that the definition of war is also transformed in
course of time and currently the concept of just cause is not fitted at all with the modern warfare.
For an instance, the prohibition of civilian causalities was damaged during the Iraq War by USA.
Q5.
The Korean War was a true example of the inevitable consequences of Cold War in
1950s. It was true that the joint forces of USSR and China were the first to cross the border of
Korea and initiated the War. However, the ideological clashes between Communism and
Capitalism was not a just factor that instigated the tension. It was an act of the ideological
clashes that initiated since the development in World War II. During the Second World War, the
Western European countries tried to keep themselves aloof from the Eastern part and appeased
Germany to expand its territory further in the Easter region. However, it was a sheer act against
the interest of Communism that transcended its hold in the Eastern region successfully.
According to Carson (2016) it can be stated that the role of the allied forces was also sceptical to
some extend because they helped the Germany to become an aggressor. However, in case of
Korea the situation was a bit different. Imperial mind-set and the motive to establish pan-
capitalist world resonated the same as Communism wanted to establish. In the words of Inboden
(2014) it was a clash of ideology rather than the interest to make a better world. Therefore, the
statement of Truman to define the US operation in Korean was a justification in retrospect of
Munich analogy was just an eyewash and based on vague interpretation. Rather it was a political
justification to legitimise the US occupation in Korea in the international arena.
Q6.

5QUESTION ANSWER
After the 9/11 attack on US Twin Tower, Al-Qaeda successfully developed a threat to the
world perception regarding terrorism. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that the total definition
of terrorism has changed its shape in course of the emergence of new terrorist groups and the
proximity of the war. In response to this, the Australian government sensed a threat to the
national structure and security of its people. In this regard, the latest attack on the Australian
Embassy in Jakarta escalated the threat and made the terrorist attack a reality for Australia.
Moreover, dfat.gov.au. (2019) advocated that Australia has become the hinterland for terrorist
groups like Al-Qaeda and Jemaah Islamiyah. In this regard, the Australian government
introduces the counter terrorism policy in the form of Transnational Terrorism: The Threat to
Australia and the Protecting Australia Against Terrorism. The first policy is resembled with the
focus on the international dimensions of the terrorism problem whereas the later one is
associated with the details of the Australia’s national counter terrorism policy and arrangements.
On the other hand, in UK the response against terrorism has become highly strict due to the
series of terrorism activities inside the UK soil. In response to this, the UK government enacted
the Terrorism Act 2000 where the Section 44 represented the power for a constable in uniform to
stop and search any terrorist activities and the 47A empower the officer to prevent any suspicion
activities inside the UK soil (gov.uk., 2018). It seems effective in terms of prohibiting any threat
regarding the international terrorism that can damage the strong edifice of sovereignty.

6QUESTION ANSWER
Reference
Anderson, S. (2014). On Shaky Grounds: Reasons behind the failure to adhere to the" Powell
Doctrine" in the 2003 Iraq invasion. e-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work, 1(1), 3.
Carson, A. (2016). Facing off and saving face: covert intervention and escalation management in
the Korean War. International Organization, 70(1), 103-131.
dfat.gov.au. (2019). The Australian Perception of the Threat and Appropriate Responses.
Retrieved from https://dfat.gov.au/news/speeches/Pages/the-australian-perception-of-the-
threat-and-appropriate-responses.aspx
Gavin, F. J. (2015). Strategies of Inhibition: US Grand Strategy, the Nuclear Revolution, and
Nonproliferation. International Security, 40(1), 9-46.
gov.uk. (2018). Counter-terrorism strategy (CONTEST) 2018. Retrieved from
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/counter-terrorism-strategy-contest-2018
Handel, M. I. (2016). Weak states in the international system. Routledge.
Howard, M., & Paret, P. (1976). Carl Von Clausewitz On War (Pp. 75-89). New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Inboden, W. (2014). Statecraft, decision-making, and the varieties of historical experience: A
taxonomy. Journal of Strategic Studies, 37(2), 291-318.
Parry, J. (2015). Just War Theory, Legitimate Authority, and Irregular
Belligerency. Philosophia, 43(1), 175-196.

7QUESTION ANSWER
Polsky, A. J. (2015). Shifting Currents: Dwight Eisenhower and the Dynamic of Presidential
Opportunity Structure. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 91-109.
Scheipers, S. (2017). ‘The most beautiful of wars’: Carl von Clausewitz and small
wars. European Journal of International Security, 2(1), 47-63.
Zwitter, A., & Hoelzl, M. (2014). Augustine on War and Peace. Peace Review, 26(3), 317-324.