The Science Of War

The Science of War         Possibly the hardest thing to explain is how any(prenominal) leading so fundament wholey misunderstand the implications war.

        The president of the mend together States is George W. Bush. Here is a man who snorted cocaine while in high school, dodged the draft when he was eighteen, and was make outn as a womanizer and an alcoholic by his peers. He was a disappointment with his business, and while he was governing Texas, it was consistently rated as adept of the worst states for education. As his presidency began, our economy took a downwardly turn. It has been argued that Bush would be unable to find his way turn up of a burning ph cardinal booth without the aid of his advisors. And now, in what is perhaps wholeness of the most signifi ceaset turn of events in world politics in the last twelve years, (some superpower argue longer) he is seen on the television, promoting a war against an mephistophelean that he shadownot name and has never seen. The only thing we can guess is that war will involve violence, probably on a large scale.

        It is no wonder that when I tell certain passages in Tolstoys War and Peace, I am reminded of many issues that nurse arisen due to the recent disasters in the f in all in States. In particular, the descriptions of the battle techniques, and the planning that the Russian officials use in wartime, all seem to echo unalike misjudgments and idiosyncrasies that similarly imbue the rhetoric of military officials today.

        One example of this is when Prince Andrew reevaluates his interpretation on the phrase military genius, (pp. 572) and realizes that there is, indeed, no such(prenominal) animal. Military genius is a phrase bestowed upon those who ar in positions of power; those who give orders and argon met (luckily) with favorable results. The volume who have real sway in the outcome of battle situations are the petty officers who are personally committing each recreate of war. assume the existence of free will (past the orders of superiors), these are the men who are responsible for what they do, (as is anyone) and in this case, that is make war.

        It seems necessary to reevaluate the commentary of the word war. Websters: WAR. (wôr) 1. A state or period of fortify conflict amid nations, parties, or states. 2. The techniques of war; military science.

. . . The vocabulary definition of war is not as exact in detailing its implications, which generally include suffering, death, loss, destruction, and direct fallout as a result.

        Prince Andrew, after leading his troops through Bogucharovo, gains brisk respect for Kutuzov (pp. 664) The respect he gains comes from a realization that Kutuzov is not looking for personal or political gain in his involvement in the war. He is simply working in the interests of what he can best divine is right and just. What lies underneath such an attitude of hear(ing) everything, remember(ing) everything, and put(ting) everything in its place, is a intelligence of exactitude, of designed only what is known, and acting upon nothing else.

        This knowledge elicits from Prince Andrew a various response then his earlier, more jaded reaction. He is console by the generals sense of calm, be pretend with it lies a sort of wisdom. Why, indeed, should one act irrationally when a sea of events presenting themselves one after other require nothing but equal consideration and cautiously measured response?         Sadly, it seems that not all of humanity is resourceful of a simple, measured response to each and every stimuli that strikes us. peradventure it is our selfishness, or our greed, or our egos that inevitably surface among us in times of great grief or suffering. The leaders of the unify States seem to have few reservations about throwing out delivery like war and evil. They are only human, and their experiences (in the broadest sense of the word) are the only tools they have to make decisions with. In this special case, regardless of what proof they have, their principle aim is to let people know that they are ready for action. Supposing General Kutúzof were the President of the coupled States, it seems unlikely that he would jump to go to war. Surely his honey and love for his nation would seem threatened, and surely he would aggrieve; but Kutúzof would most likely wait until he knew affluent about the situation to make a necessary choice. That choice, also, would be based upon the experiences of his life.



                          Supposition considered, it is a wonder to think that 2 human minds would react so very differently to the uniform situation. Logically such differences can be explained by the differences between the experiences and influences in the lives of George W. Bush and General Kutúzof. Both grew up in different areas with different role models, different families, different educations, different lovers. Another ?tolstoyism comes to mind. ...to assume a beginning of any phenomenon, or to say that the will of many men is expressed by the actions of any one historic personage, is in itself false. (pp.732) This is part of Tolstoys judgment that no one man controls history, as history is the cumulative story of all mankind, and therefore is utterly uncontrollable. Any one incident in a historic timeline cannot be imbued with too much meaning. To do so would be to betray how reverend history is, how extraordinarily complex yet connected it is. To payoff one aspect and attribute it to the whole of history is one thing: to imply that that kindred thing is a cause of something (or anything) greater is intrinsically false.

        Now we apply Tolstoys philosophies of history to our pilot light thesis: Possibly the hardest thing to explain is how some leaders so fundamentally misunderstand the implications war. What we have additionally well-educated is that leaders themselves are disposed toward making decisions based on the situation in which they find themselves, and the way they have lived, and what they know as a result of that. In short, countless factors affect the outcome of these decisions that are made by leaders. So all in all, their misunderstandings of war, and what war does to people, are inevitable pieces of history. We cannot give blamed entirely to these influential people who happen to be the same ones that we study hundreds of years later. Although the different details may vary, we can know in some essential way that all leaders are bound to do what they do.

If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: Ordercustompaper.com



If you want to get a full essay, wisit our page: write my paper