A comparative analysis of Clausewitz and Liddle Hart’s Military Theories and their applicability in modern warfare

Abstract

The celebrated idea of Prussian war strategist Clausewitz regarding 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 efforts against the power of resistance". In a way, his idea was akin to annihilating the 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 different military theory called" Indirect Approach". The objective of this paper is based on making a comparative analysis between Clausewitz and Liddle Hart regarding the utility of their military theories in modern warfare. While taking a methodology based on a comparative analysis of the utility of the two doctrines, this paper explores the effectiveness of those military strategies against the current asymmetries in modern warfare. In order to buttress the reliability of this research, the examples from the Ukrainian war and the Sri Lankan war between 1990-2009 will 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 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.