Is Clausewitz's Remarkable Trinity Still Valid?
A Comparison of WWII, Vietnam, and the Global War on Terror (GWOT)
Carl Von Clausewitz is arguably the world’s most influential military theorist. The Remarkable Trinity is the capstone thesis of his book On War. Many theorists claim Clausewitz is obsolete given the rise of the non-state actor. Though he did most of his writings in the early 1800s during the rise of the nation state, “The Remarkable Trinity” is not obsolete. An evaluation of past and present conflict demonstrates its validity.
The Remarkable Trininty
Clausewitz says the trinity is; (1) primordial violence, hatred, and enmity; (2) the play of chance and probability; and (3) war's element of subordination to rational policy.[1] Many theorists interpret the trinity as military, people, and government. This second interpretation forms the basis for this discussion.
In the perfect trinity, the three elements are weighted the same. However, each belligerent applies resources to the trinity as it sees best. Therefore, no trinity is symmetrical. Due to limited resources, the trinity remains a zero sum game. As one factor grows, another shrinks. The largest factor represents the belligerent’s strength. The party that properly applies its resources to the trinity will defeat its enemy’s strength.
World War II
World War II represents a conflict in which the belligerents applied all elements of national power to the trinity. Both sides fully employed their military, population, and government. Since both sides generally maintained a balanced trinity, WWII became a war of attrition. The Allies were able to sustain the fight longer than the Axis. The Allies trinity was able to defeat the Axis trinity.
Vietnam
Vietnam demonstrates a war fought with an unbalanced trinity. The United States focused on using their military to defeat North Vietnam. The U.S fought the campaign without maintaining public support. The North Vietnamese maintained a level of public support, government involvement, and military engagement through the entire conflict. The North Vietnamese kept their trinity balanced and won the conflict in the end. U.S. military strength alone is unable to defeat the balanced trinity.
The Global War on Terror (GWOT)
The Global War on Terror (GWOT) pits the United States and western nations against insurgents who seek to re-establishment the caliphate. This conflict is unbalanced on both sides. The U.S. strength is again military. The enemy’s strength is people. The U.S. military easily overcomes the insurgent’s military. However, as demonstrated in Vietnam, the U.S. trinity seems to be mismatched. Morality (and desire for the rule of reason[2] will not allow the destruction of people with military.
The U.S. should re-evaluate its trinity. Since western morality will not allow military – the current U.S. strength – to defeat the enemy’s strength, the U.S. must make adjustments to wage war within self-imposed rules. The U.S. should not continue to waste excess resources on military. The U.S. should balance its trinity by involving more government and people.
Conclusion
A review of three different conflicts demonstrates the validity of the trinity. The trinity remains a valuable tool to evaluate war at the national level. The rise of the non-state actor does not nullify the trinity. Western cultures must re-evaluate the application of national resources. A military-dominated trinity may not be the correct solution to the current conflict.
Carl Von Clausewitz, translated by Michael Howard, Peter Paret, On War (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989).
Lee Harris, The Suicide of Reason, Radical Islam’s Threat to the West (New York: Basic Books, 2007).
