War as nothing but a duel: war as an institution and the construction of the Western military profession

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Ilmari Käihkö
{"title":"War as nothing but a duel: war as an institution and the construction of the Western military profession","authors":"Ilmari Käihkö","doi":"10.2478/JMS-2018-0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Like all repetitive human interaction, even war has been institutionalized and fought according to conventions and norms. Historically, this institutionalization is apparent from the way war has been compared to the duel, first in the 14th century and most famously by Carl von Clausewitz 5 centuries later. This article continues this train of thought and argues that the observed limits of Western “professional orthodoxy” and “strategic vocabulary” can be traced to how war has been institutionalized by the military profession. This offers an alternative explanation to the prevailing views of why the West has struggled in contemporary wars: it is the fundamental mismatch between these professional norms in the West and those held by their opponents that forms the biggest asymmetry in contemporary war. As this asymmetry is unlikely to disappear, these professional norms need to be reconsidered: just like the aristocracy with the duel by the late 19th century, the Western military profession appears stuck in an institution that is increasingly becoming obsolete. Without such reconsideration, the attainment of decision – the central strategic objective in war – and hence victory in future wars will remain uncertain.","PeriodicalId":35160,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Slavic Military Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Slavic Military Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/JMS-2018-0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract Like all repetitive human interaction, even war has been institutionalized and fought according to conventions and norms. Historically, this institutionalization is apparent from the way war has been compared to the duel, first in the 14th century and most famously by Carl von Clausewitz 5 centuries later. This article continues this train of thought and argues that the observed limits of Western “professional orthodoxy” and “strategic vocabulary” can be traced to how war has been institutionalized by the military profession. This offers an alternative explanation to the prevailing views of why the West has struggled in contemporary wars: it is the fundamental mismatch between these professional norms in the West and those held by their opponents that forms the biggest asymmetry in contemporary war. As this asymmetry is unlikely to disappear, these professional norms need to be reconsidered: just like the aristocracy with the duel by the late 19th century, the Western military profession appears stuck in an institution that is increasingly becoming obsolete. Without such reconsideration, the attainment of decision – the central strategic objective in war – and hence victory in future wars will remain uncertain.
战争只不过是一场决斗:战争是一种制度,也是西方军事职业的建构
像所有重复的人类互动一样,即使是战争也已经制度化,并根据惯例和规范进行战斗。从历史上看,这种制度化从战争被比作决斗的方式来看是显而易见的,第一次是在14世纪,最著名的是5个世纪后的卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨。本文将继续这一思路,并认为西方“专业正统”和“战略词汇”的局限性可以追溯到战争是如何被军事专业制度化的。这为西方在当代战争中挣扎的普遍观点提供了另一种解释:西方的职业规范与对手的职业规范之间的根本不匹配,形成了当代战争中最大的不对称。由于这种不对称不太可能消失,这些职业规范需要重新考虑:就像19世纪末的贵族决斗一样,西方军事职业似乎陷入了一种越来越过时的制度中。如果不进行这种重新考虑,今后战争的中心战略目标——决策的达成和胜利,将仍然是不确定的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Slavic Military Studies
Journal of Slavic Military Studies Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信