Michael Pollak <mpollak@panix.com> wrote: <BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> On Wed, 26 Mar 2003, andie nachgeborenen wrote: > Well, maybe at one level. BNut at another, Clausewitz's maxim is > normative, not descriptive. It tells us that war has a point, a purpose, > and isn't just an opportunity for glory or an occasion for the > self-expression of a warrior elite. To make Clauswitz normative is to turn him on his head. And to make him even more redundant in the post WWI period, since thereafter no one anymore claimed glory or self-expression as a sufficient justification for going to war. * * * I don't think so. Clausewitz wrote at a time before the rigidly positivist notion of value-free social science was firmly entrenched. He knew perfectly well, moreover, that hostorically lots of wars have been fought for no rational political aim, but for glory or honor. And he was targeting for normative critique (I think) what he saw as dangerous anachronistic notions of glory and honor. (Hobbes similarly, btw.) Today, those notions are not widely shared. But we have their counterparts, such as the idiot notion of prestige or face that kept the US in Vietnam long after it became clear that it was a losing proposition. Today, the starry-eyed drive for unbridled hegmonic power that exceeds any rational aim one might have for it and any calculation of costs is something that has has the Bushies firmly in its grasp. jks</BLOCKQUOTE> <hr size=1>Do you Yahoo!? <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">Yahoo! Platinum</a> - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, <a href="http://rd.yahoo.com/platinum/evt=8162/*http://platinum.yahoo.com/splash.html">live on your desktop</a>!