Carl von Clausewitz and the Bhagavad Gita

Iran has been asked to send a delegation to tomorrow’s ceasefire negotiations in Doha – Iran reportedly declined, saying it ‘does not acknowledge or speak to representatives of the Zionists’.

Hamas declined the invitation, saying that it was time for action and not more talk.

In Russia, the previous peace offering from Putin is off the table.  There is no one to talk to.

In the west, Carl von Clausewitz is the most well known for his thesis Vom Krige and in English, On War, which was not a completed work.   Clausewitz had set about revising his accumulated manuscripts in 1827, but did not live to finish the task. His wife edited his collected works and published them between 1832 and 1835.^[3]

He argued that human affairs and war in particular were very different from natural phenomena and the sciences. He ruled out any rigid system of rules and principles for the conduct of war, celebrating instead the free operation of genius, changing historical conditions, moral forces, and the elements of uncertainty and chance. These elements, especially the enemy’s counteractions, give war a nonlinear logic. Every simple action encounters “friction” which slows it down and may frustrate it.  He coined the phrase “the fog of war” in different words.

He does not use the exact phrase “fog of war”, but uses multiple similar metaphors, such as “twilight” and “moonlight”, to describe a ‘lack of clarity’.

The first known use of the exact phrase in text dates to 1836 in a poem entitled “The Battle of Bunker Hill” by McDonald Clarke. The poem describes an assault by British forces upon an American redoubt during the Battle of Bunker Hill.

Will they dare a third attack?
Is a question seen in every eye; Old Put across the neck and back,
Rides slowly, their vengeance to defy—
Wildy, in that deadly hour,
The Ramparts shove their bolted shower,
While mid the waving fog of war,
Thunders the Yankee’s loud hurrah”

The first known attempt to explicitly define the “fog of war” in a military text was made in 1896 in a book titled The Fog of War by Sir Lonsdale Augustus Hale, where it is described as “the state of ignorance in which commanders frequently find themselves as regards the real strength and position, not only of their foes but also of their friends.”

His description of a ‘lack of clarity’ in war epitomizes his work.  Of course, I am stepping over mountains of detail.

From the Eastern climes, the most well-known is the Bhagavad Gita which is a tract in a series of 700 verses extracted from Bhishma Parva, one of the 18 books that make up the Mahabharata, a major Sanskrit epic that narrates a power struggle and an eventual war between two families.

The Gita as a Call for Just War

The war depicted in the Mahabharata, of which the Gita is part, is a battle between two families, the Pandavas and Kauravas, sets of cousins who are both seeking to inherit control over the kingdom of Hastinapur. After many years of enmity, Krishna, ruler of a neighboring kingdom, offers to mediate a solution between the cousins. As negotiations fail and war between the cousins becomes inevitable, Krishna offers further services to both sides, stating that, to one side, he will give his army, and to the other, he will act as a charioteer. The Kauravas choose the former and Arjuna, the Pandava warrior prince, the latter – and, thus, Krishna agrees to become Arjuna’s charioteer during the war. Against this backdrop, the Gita takes the form of a conversation between Krishna and Arjuna, with Arjuna confessing that his body ‘trembles’ at the thought of going to war with his ‘own people’. Unbeknownst to Arjuna, Krishna is a manifestation of God, and Krishna proceeds to offer advice to Arjuna to guide him in battle.

Krishna tells Arjuna that the first thing one must do is to understand his dharma – duty or ethic. The next step is to wage a battle, if need be, ‘for the sake of dharma’. Krishna wants Arjuna to know that, being a warrior, Arjuna can never find a ‘greater’ purpose than to partake in dharmayuddha, or a righteous war. Underlining the significance of such an endeavor, Krishna announces to Arjuna:

‘If you are killed,
you shall reach heaven;
or if you triumph,
you shall enjoy the earth;
so stand up
Son of Kunti,
firm in your resolve,
To fight!’

• Verse 37, Chapter 2

With intricate intellectual arguments, religious justifications and ethical considerations Krishna offers Arjuna to convince him that, contrary to what he thinks, it is walking away from the war that is true ‘harm’, for he would be abandoning his dharma by not fighting the enemy when called upon to do so. The Gita is, thus, a text about Arjuna’s transformation from indecision and inaction to a man of responsible action. Krishna urges and convinces Arjuna that it is his dharma to fight a righteous war, even if it comes with painful consequences, which, Krishna claims, arise out of Arjuna’s limited understanding of the nature of the world and reality. In the concluding 18^th chapter, Arjuna declares that the doubts and despondency he expressed initially were a ‘delusion’ and that this conversation with Krishna has given way to ‘wise memory’, thus, announcing his readiness to go to battle, which is his true dharma.

Besides the fact that the Gita is a treatise on man’s purpose and self-realisation,  the text is certainly a meditation on just war. It offers moral and ethical reasons to go to war and is less concerned with one’s conduct during war. Seen from this perspective, the dharma called for in the Gita’s dharmayuddha is linked to the moral quality of reasoning that inspires the war and has nothing to do with the moral quality of a combatant’s conduct on the battlefield.   The critique is that the Gita subscribes to ‘the end justifies the means’ but this is from those who do not understand the ethics.  Again, I am stepping over mountains of detail.

So from the west, the main philosopher on war tries to make sense of ‘the fog of war’, while in the east, the main text on war subscribes knowledge of oneself, duty, dharma and ethical considerations, before war.   Surprisingly, as we don’t use the word ‘linear’ in eastern philosophy, it is quite a surprise to see the linearity of the debate.   

It is thus very clear to see the motivations of those involved in the three situations mentioned to start this article.

Russia went through all ethical considerations given the time period and if one starts with the promise that NATO will not move an inch to the east.  Russia took time to redefine a new security structure for itself and Europe which was indivisible, and then, only after exhausting these paths, did they call their SMO in the Ukraine.  They keep to ethics by not attacking civilians and their dharma is to protect their own, i.e., other Russian people.

It is the same with Iran and even Hamas.  The ethical considerations were clearly taken into account, they know the enemy and one can reason that they know themselves, as they did not rush in after unbelievable provocation,  and create a larger war, which is the wish of the empire.

The empire in its turn, the enemy, has no clue who they are, they cannot spell ethics and they break every rule and law of war and humanitarian law.

This is why I remain on Medvedev’s side.  Two quotes:

“There is yet another political and legal consequence of what’s happened. From this moment on, the special military operation must be of openly extraterritorial character. It is no longer an operation to bring back our official territories and punish the nazis. It is possible and necessary to enter the lands of the still-existing Ukraine, and go to Odessa, Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, and Nikolaev; to Kiev, and further on. There must be no limitations in terms of the Ukrainian reich’s borders recognized by some. And now it is possible and necessary to speak of this openly, without hesitation and diplomatic curtsies.

The terrorist operation by the banderovtsy must be the ground to shake any taboos off the subject. And let everyone, including the English bastards, be aware of this: we will stop only when we consider this acceptable and advantageous for ourselves.”

“RIP to the deceased: the military, the civilian, to all those who got caught in the neonazis’ heavy fire. The best way to remember them is to carry out a well-planned revenge. Speedy recovery to all the injured.”

In addition, he noted in terms of the zionists, Gaza and the Palestinians, Syria, Yemen, etc:

“The knot is tightening in the Middle East. Sorry for the innocent lives lost. They are but hostages of a disgusting state: the USA.
Meanwhile, it’s clear to everyone that a full-scale war is the only way to a shaky peace in the region.”

.