| dc.description.abstract | The celebrated idea of Prussian war strategist Clausewitz regarding the conventional
warfare played a dominant role up to the First World War in the West. In his seminal
work “On War”, Clausewitz posits “If you want to overcome your enemy, you must match
your e orts against the power of resistance”. In way his idea was akin to annihilating
enemy’s army in major battles. However, this idea was challenged by British military
strategist Captain Basil Liddle Hart in his book titled “The Strategy” by proposing a
di erent military theory called “Indirect Approach”. This objective of this paper is based
on making a comparative analysis between Clausewitz and Liddle Hart regarding the
utility of their military theories in the modern warfare. While taking a methodology
based on a comparative analysis of the utility of the two doctrines, this paper explores
the e ectiveness of those military strategies against the current asymmetries in modern
warfare. In order to buttress the reliability of this research, the examples from Ukrainian
war and the Sri Lankan civil war between 1990-2009 would be examined . The main
objectivity of this paper lies in creating a novel discussion on the merits and demerits of
Clausewitz and Captain Basil Liddle Hart’s theories of war in the contemporary warfare.
The results emerging from this research will demonstrate the relevance of re reading both
Clausewitz and Liddle Hart in an era, where the orthodox idea of warfare is at stake. | en_US |
