Part 3

Military Philosophy

by Hugh M. Lewis

Much of literary composition describing warfare has been categorized indiscriminately under the definition of strategy, a term having come to mean just about anything for the problems encountered in military thought. The terms strategy and strategist have been applied not only to all historically critical persons and plans involved in the conduct of warfare but also the renowned thinkers and writers theorists such as Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, Jomini and Liddel Hart have been grouped alongside great military leaders such as Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon and Nelson.

The term strategy is more specifically applicable to the role of general who are primarily concerned with the practical application of strategy. They are practitioners of the art of war. The prolific writers about war are not primarily concerned with the practice of war but with the meaning and consequences of war, making attempts to divine from the history of warfare the essential nature of war and the essence of strategy. More accurately they have been the contributors to the body of thought on warfare better termed military philosophy.

Not being recognized as a distinct role in itself, the military philosopher has been relegated to the role of strategist. The military philosopher has at no time completely changed roles with the military strategist. The roles serve distinct functions but are not mutually exclusive. Some of the renowned strategists have made important literary contributions to the field of military philosophy yet some may never have read nor would have been able to fully comprehend the teachings of military philosophy. For them strategy was for the most part the products of first hand experience and of imaginative intelligence. Military philosophy has influence the direction of thought taken by many strategists, but only a few philosophers have had a critical influence on the course of history, such as Machiavelli, Clauswitz, Douhet, Mahan and Mao. A few of the military philosophers have not even been involved in the military profession not have had first hand experience in the practical application of strategy. The necessity of military philosophy for the conduct of war is dubious yet its possible potential for the influence of the future remains enormous.

Military philosophy deals with the science and theory of war, usually assuming the form of literary essays dealing with the historical perspectives, the documentation of dates and events and the analysis of the underlying motivations and causes of war. An objective understanding of military philosophy has suffered the same problems as with the objective understanding of warfare itself. It suffers from the fragmentation of years and cultures and from the imprint of the personalities of its individual contributors. It has lacked any unified systematic approach to its understanding as a unique school of thought taking due place with the other basic philosophies. As the title of this part suggest, the underlying theme is military philosophy, not strategy. It is not so much an attempt to provide a unified systematic approach to military philosophy but offers an alternative perspective to the understanding of war and strategy, the theoretical perspective of the essential duality of military philosophy.

Military Dimensions