A very welcome addition to The Economist, as far as I am concerned.

Cheers!

Welcome, it's great to have another source of information as well as another excuse to spend time on. Especially one on such an interesting topic.

Perhaps it was prophetic that you'd bring up the impenetrability of the book. As you yourself have just, as most people do, misunderstood the context in which the "war is a continuation of politics" quote is to be understood. The reason being, of course, the dialectical approach with which obfuscating 19th century Germans loved to write.

Goodness, did nobody suggest SunTzu? Clausewitz had a flair for putting the broad drama into catchy phrases, and burying the subtlety in his "fine print". As a result, he is often misinterpreted as favoring ham-handed kill-em-all approaches. SunTzu, by contrast, made clear up front that understanding yourself, your foe, and the conditions of combat is of supreme importance.

That said, welcome Clausewitz.

Too British?...We wanted a more international flavour??

Damn and blast man!
Call yourself the Economist?!....Damn your eyes!
Where's your spine? Where's your stiff upper lip?

Clausewitz? Namby pamby continental poppycock wot!

This blog better be good.

Although I am not completely convinced by the name, I, like others here, am glad to have this forum. Long overdue.

Oh and lest my earlier comment sound too nitpickily aspergian. This blog is most welcome :).

Clausewitz employed a dialectical approach to war. The famous quote about war being the continuation of politics by other means was not Clausewitz' synthesis, but the antithesis to the thesis that war is just brute force. So his most famous aphorism is not actually what he believed.

Interesting new blog, good subject, good title. Glad to see the Economist will be covering this.

I dare say Clausewitz is not simply more owned than read; he is more quoted than understood.

By chance I'm reading his "On War" at the moment.

No doubt the entire writing sparkles of genius. However, I find his "total war" approach less relevant in the 21th century where economic gains are behind most of current/foreseeable warfares instead of traditional territorial or ideological motives as causes for war. Notions such as "utmost use of force", "aim to disarm the enemy" etc. need to be interpreted under new contexts imho.

"Clausewits" is definitely the most appropriate name for the blog though.

Clausewitz has a very strong contender in the War Tard:
http://wartard.blogspot.com/

I wonder what just Clausewitz ( even a German!) has to tell us today?
The times of Clausewitz are long time ago.
And not even in Germany there would be anybody who would see Clausewitz as important.
Germany itself has drawn the clear consequences after 2 world wars that German soldiers never have anything to do outside of their own country.
Meanwhile even the German government has noticed that it was the biggest mistake that German troops took part at the intervention of Yugoslavia as well as they have nothing at all to do in Afghanistan.
Germany can reduce its armed forces on an extremely low minium and especially Germany should strictly keep off from any kind of an involvement into foreign conflicts.
German soldiers have never to do anything outside of Germany and Germany does not need any kind of military power.
Quite different to the politics of Clausewitz, Germany has not any kind of territorial interests nor has Germany any real enemies in spite of the fact tat Germans are still extremely hated and insulted in a series of European nations and parts of America.
But hatred and hostility and the fact being regarded by most Europeans as enemies does not mean that Germany would need an army.

Different to Clausewitz, Germany should withdraw from international politics and try to become neutral.
Neutrality and complete passivity even in regard of neighbour countries are the best protection.
Clausewitz was proposing an active role- today, we need a passive role as we see by lessons of history that wars never were solving any problem.

Thanks for your comments, and for pointing out that we've made a common error in misinterpreting Clausewitz's famous phrase. I've amended accordingly, and linked to the original text—in English, you'll be glad to hear, rather than German (or, worse, German in gothic type, which is even harder to read).

Another comment on the blog name: Clausewitz - a German (Prussian even), fighting for Russians against French - this continental mess as a name for a British newspaper - exactly the sense of humour I love.

Surely it was a great man, but who I respect and admire above all is the one and only Sun Tzu.
Remember when americans lost the war in Vietnam?? ask what kind of military strategy they were based on.... well on the unexpected guerilla warfare mencioned by Sun Tsu in what is maybe one of the most important books of all times, The art of War.
I hope those new articles may bring peacefull ideas to some in power having other things in mind...

Having read borh Clausewitz and SunTzu I am glad you picked the German. He was a bit more analytical in his approach to warfare than his chinese "competitor".

Congrats Clausewitz! Charlemagne can do with company; after so many blogs beginning with "B".

Splendid! Especially in the context of recent "coming out" of German strategists (NGDP targeting)

You described your objection to various suggestions for names--Dreadnought, Machiavelli, "British generals and foreign secretaries"--but not to "Athena." Indeed, you even acknowledged that the name combines military and political aspects. So why wasn't it selected? Could it be because Athena is--gasp!--female?