Clausewitz's Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity - NDU Press
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Marine with 2nd Low Altitude Air Defense
Battalion Counter–Unmanned Aerial
Systems Detachment, attached to Special
Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task Force Crisis
Response–Central Command, conducts
functions check on Mine Resistant Ambush
Protected vehicle, Southwest Asia, February
17, 2019 (U.S. Marine Corps/Jack C. Howell)
n On War, Carl von Clausewitz intro-
Clausewitz’s I duces readers to widely recognized
axioms such as how the simplest
things become hard in war and how
Wondrous Yet the fog and friction of war transform
minor difficulties into major, nearly
insurmountable obstacles. Within many
Paradoxical Trinity of these axioms, Clausewitz describes
the nonlinear nature of war. It is,
however, the last five paragraphs of his
The Nature of War as a first chapter that holistically describe
the nature of war as a nonlinear system.
His description and understanding of
Complex Adaptive System the social dynamics of war give complex
meaning to the interaction of various
social elements in war, characterizing it
By Brian Cole as a complex adaptive system. Political
and military leaders and policymakers
should be mindful of the nonlinear
But in war more than in any other subject we must begin by nature of the social interactions in war.
In doing so, they will be more prepared
looking at the nature of the whole; for here more than elsewhere
and adaptable to unpredicted yet mate-
the part and whole must always be thought of together. rial developments throughout a conflict.
—Carl von Clausewitz
Brian Cole is the Director of the Joint Warfare
Department at the Marine Corps War College.
42 JPME Today / Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020
Clausewitz describes war in holistic nonlinear nature of war, explains how his to understand the nature of war, and
terms as a paradoxical trinity comprised trinity is a complex adaptive system, and the wondrous trinity can be used as a
of the tendencies of the people, the illustrates how complexity theory can be methodological starting point to study-
commander and his army, and the gov- applied as a framework to examine his ing post–19th-century war.9 Ultimately,
ernment. In war, the most violent of observations of the interactions among war is characterized by a combination
social interactions—the three elements of chance, politics, and passion in unity. of the three tendencies of the trinity
the Clausewitz’s trinity—interact within with varying influences dependent on
and among the other elements to create Clausewitz’s Trinity conditions such as the state of weapons
a pattern of behavior that is understand- Clausewitz argues that war is a phe- technology and the historical relation-
able yet difficult to predict. Clausewitz nomenon consisting of three central ships between opponents.10
warns that while it is hard enough to un- elements or dominant tendencies. War is an act of violence, of that there
derstand the nature of each of the three This triad, or trinity, is a paradoxical is no question, but it is first an extension
elements of war’s paradoxical trinity, a relationship “composed of primordial of policy, a rational and purposeful act of
“theory that ignores any one of them or violence, hatred, and enmity . . . chance violent means used to forcefully compel
seeks to fix an arbitrary relationship be- and probability . . . and of its element one’s opponent to its will. The primacy of
tween them would conflict with reality to of subordination, as an instrument of politics may start as the most influential
such an extent that for this reason alone policy.”4 It is paradoxical because while tendency of war, but the nature of the
it would be totally useless.”1 John Miller war is an extension of policy—a ratio- conflict will be determined by the initial
and Scott Page echo Clausewitz’s senti- nal tendency—it is propelled at times conditions and the subsequent interac-
ments by exclaiming that to understand a by primordial violence and hatred— tion of the trinity’s three elements.11 The
complex adaptive system, we must know irrational tendencies—or by chance. combatants’ subordination of rational
both the nature of each element and the Primordial violence is the blind natural policy may be usurped by chance and
meaning of their interactions.2 force, whereas the subordinated nature luck, or by the primordial tendencies of
Clausewitz uses still-contemporary of war as a political tool is what makes hatred and enmity.
ideas and terms in his manuscript, but it subject to pure reason, and chance is
his descriptions of the trinity, its at- always a factor under extremely violent Three Levels of the Trinity
tributes, and its emergent behavior are and dangerous conditions.5 Each of Thomas Waldman establishes a typol-
what complexity theory describes as a the three elements are “manifested in ogy for the trinity’s elements. The
complex adaptive system. Complexity a corresponding subject within society: typology is defined as the objective,
theory was originally developed for the respectively, the people, the commander subjective, and contextual levels of the
natural sciences, but social scientists find and his army, and the government.”6 trinity. Passion, chance, and politics
it useful to understand social systems. Clausewitz’s trinity is a compressed constitute the primary or objective
Complexity theory provides a framework concept of a number of central ideas trinity. The primary trinity is manifested
to help us understand the root causes that are integrated by a logic of inter- into the societal elements of the people,
of phenomena—not replace traditional acting contrasts.7 The trinity is a social the commander and his army, and the
theories—and to help us understand the system that exhibits complex interac- government, respectively. The societal
nature of war. tions and adaptive, emergent behavior. elements, Waldman explains, make
Modern military strategists, com- The system is sensitive to initial condi- up the secondary or subjective trinity,
manders, and staff officers must be tions, and chance and luck can always whereas context constitutes a third level.
familiar with the abstract conception of alter the system’s behavior in unpredict- Context is not a trinity, but it is the
war and be willing to release the con- able ways. conditions under which the other two
crete, tangible tactics for the operators. levels of the trinity exist and interact.
War must be considered as a whole or, The Nature of War Is Constant The trinity as a system is highly sensi-
as Michael Handel writes, a gestalt, to Clausewitz wrote On War in a time tive to its conditions, and thus context
appreciate the complexity and nonlin- when wars were interstate conflicts is vital to explaining changes that occur
ear nature of war. Handel argues that fought by clearly defined armies. War at the secondary level and provides an
“because of its infinite complexity and was confined to battlefields and uni- understanding of the inherent flexibility
non-linear nature, war can only be under- formed combatants. The characteristics of the trinity.12
stood as an organic whole, not as a mere of war have changed since the 19th The third level, context, influences
compendium of various elements.”3 century, but its nature has not. It is con- the system the most. Context provides
This article provides an overview of structive to challenge the relevance of the setting in which “the three primary
Clausewitz’s wondrous yet paradoxical Clausewitz to modern war, and doing tendencies—passion, chance, and poli-
trinity, complexity theory, and complex so forces one to revisit his nonlinear tics—are manifested in reality through
adaptive systems. In the end, it revisits theories of war.8 The first book in On secondary level subjects.”13 Clausewitz
Clausewitz’s paradoxical trinity and the War is a conceptual framework created explains context by showing that
JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020 Cole 43
historically, societies tend to conduct wars to the economic theory of increasing Aggregation of Agents. A complex
in their own particular ways, using differ- returns, making it difficult to predict adaptive system is an aggregation of
ent methods and pursuing different aims its behavior. The theory of increasing agents within a given environment. The
than their opponents.14 He describes con- returns relies on a principle of inde- modeler decides what to focus on and
text in the opening sentence of his section terminacy and accounting for random what to avoid. Aggregation is a build-
on the trinity, writing, “War is more than events affecting markets. The properties ing block approach in which aggregates
a true chameleon that slightly adapts of complex systems also make them act like agents at a higher level, or as
its characteristics to the given case.”15 capable of self-organizing and adapting meta-agents. Modeling is an art form,
Waldman argues that Clausewitz uses without a central authority. and what is aggregated is dependent
the chameleon to demonstrate how war Complex Adaptive Systems. Complex on what a modeler wishes to examine.
is connected to its surroundings.16 Justin systems are found in many places. In the Aggregation is also about the actions of a
Kelly and Mike Brennan write that war natural world, such systems include the complex adaptive system. In aggregation,
must be viewed as a complex system that brain, immune systems, ecologies, cells, a modeler can identify and understand a
emerges from “infinitely small changes developing embryos, and ant colonies. In system’s emergent behavior as a whole,
in its environment, truly ‘more than a the human world, they include cultural, which is commonly different than the
chameleon.’”17 Initial conditions are too economic, and social systems such as behavior of the individual agent.
varied to apply a single methodology on political parties or scientific communities. Tags. Boundaries can be defined for
which to approach a conflict. The context Complex systems are everywhere in all specific aggregations of agents or popula-
constructs the initial relationships, acting sorts of contexts, but complex systems tions. When one defines the boundaries
as a catalytic force of emerging, largely that adapt share central properties.20 of an aggregation, it is referred to as
unpredictable behaviors among and be- A complex adaptive system consists of tagging. For example, a flag or guidon is
tween elements of the trinity. The hope, a network of agents acting in parallel. used to unite in effort an army or group
as Kelly and Brennan remind us, is not to Agents, depending on the context, can of people under a political system. Billiard
achieve absolute control but to influence be nerve cells, individuals, firms, or even balls on a table are a population of billiard
tendencies toward desirable outcomes whole nations. In a complex adaptive balls, but adding stripes to half the balls
and away from undesirable ones.18 system, “Each agent finds itself in an manipulates the symmetry and tags the
environment produced by its interac- aggregations into stripes and solids. In
A Review of the Inherent tions with other agents in the system. An the field of complexity theory, tags are
Properties of Complex Systems agent is constantly acting and reacting used to manipulate symmetries in order
What makes a system complex and not to what the other agents are doing.”21 to study certain details while ignoring
complicated? Complicated systems may As a result, nothing in a complex adap- others. Tagging manipulates symmetry by
seem complex, but they are not unless tive system is fixed, and control is highly creating boundaries and thus defining the
they possess certain inherent properties decentralized.22 system or a particular aggregation that we
of a complex system. Complex systems In Harnessing Complexity, Robert seek to observe that might otherwise be
come in a wide variety of forms, and Axelrod and Michael Cohen describe hidden.24 Clausewitz tags the elements of
at times they can be difficult to recog- a complex adaptive system as the inter- the second level of the trinity by delineat-
nize or distinguish from complicated locking sets of processes that generate ing the objective level of passion, chance,
systems. A complex system is an open productive actions in a world that can- and politics to designated aggregates.
system that interacts with its environ- not be fully understood. The three key Those aggregates are the population, the
ment, whereas complicated systems are processes that constitute a complex military, and the government. The divi-
usually closed systems. A complicated adaptive system are variation, interac- sion is not an arbitrary device; rather, it
system is reducible; its parts can be dis- tion, and selection. The framework by is meant to isolate and study the interac-
aggregated, and by understanding the which Axelrod and Cohen study complex tions both within a particular system and
nature of its parts, one can determine systems is made up of three elements between the systems.
the nature of the system in the aggre- called agents, strategy, and population. An Flows. The concept of flows is impor-
gate. A complex system is irreducible. agent interacts with its environment and tant to understanding complex adaptive
One cannot determine the nature of the with other agents. It can respond to what systems. For example, flow can refer to
system in the aggregate by understand- happens around it and can act, to some the movement of goods into or out of an
ing its disaggregated parts because the extent, purposefully. A strategy is the way economy, or flow could refer to informa-
elements of a complex system interact in an agent responds to its surroundings tion or transportation with networks and
developing ways that give rise to emer- and pursues its goals. Populations are part connectors. Tags can be used to define
gent behavior.19 Unlike a complicated of an agent’s environment.23 The agent- the system and the networks that con-
system, a complex system often exhibits strategy-population framework is known nect and direct flows. Two properties can
nonlinear characteristics that can lead to as the population approach to complex affect flows. The first is the multiplying
positive feedbacks and instability, similar adaptive systems. or multiplier effect, which is common in
44 JPME Today / Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020Commander Task Force 51 Marine Major General Carl E. Mundy III addresses Sailors and Marines during all-hands call on flight deck of USS Essex, Pacific
Ocean, February 26, 2015 (U.S. Navy/Jason M. Graham)
economics when discussing circular flows; points out, it is easiest to understand complex adaptive system must work to
the second is the recycling effect. by using an example. A steel producer increase or decrease the variety of agents
The multiplier effect is the overall sells some fraction of his steel to a car in a population, but not simply by ac-
increase in returns for every unit of manufacturer. The cars are built, then commodating variety. A population with
currency spent. For example, as John driven and sold repeatedly to the point varying types of agents creates a system
Holland explains, if you were to contract that they are no longer useful and finally that gives rise to events that unfold in
someone to build a house, you would pay given up for scrap metal in a junkyard. often unpredictable ways.
the contractor, who in turns pays varying The junkyard then recycles a portion of Interaction. Interaction is essential
subcontractors. Those subcontractors use the steel used to make the cars and sells it to Axelrod and Cohen’s framework
part of that money to buy food and other for some other use. In the end, each cycle because the events of interest within a
things, and so on. By taking a fraction of traps resources to be recycled again and system come from the interactions of
the original contract and using that same again, creating a multiplying effect on the agents with other agents and artifacts.
fraction at each subsequent phase, we original resource sold to the car manu- For example, trade occurs when a buyer
can determine the multiplying effect. For facturer.26 This cycle can occur several meets a seller, strategies of bidding and
instance, if the fraction to be applied to times over, depending on the system and offering take place, and eventually goods
each step in the spending process is r = 80 resource. change hands. Most complex adaptive
percent, we can calculate 1 + r + r2 + r3 + Variation. Variation of a population systems have distinctive interaction pat-
r4 + . . . or using the equation 1/(1 – r), is an essential attribute of a complex terns, which are “neither random or
we get a multiplying effect on the overall adaptive system. Variation, Axelrod and completely structured.”29 Axelrod and
system of 1/(1 – 0.8) = 5.25 The result Cohen write, “provides the raw material Cohen provide two examples: asymmetric
in this example is that for every $1 spent, for adaptation.”27 There are, however, interaction and uniform interaction.
the effect to the overall economy is $5. limits to the extent variation in a popula- Asymmetric interaction occurs, for ex-
The other property of flows is the tion will facilitate adaptation.28 Those ample, when a leader is able to broadcast
recycling effect. Once again, as Holland who want to shape the behavior of a messages simultaneously to many who
JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020 Cole 45Marine Corps Communication-Electronics School student racks billiard balls before match during Single Marine Program’s weekly pool tournament held at 5th Street Zone, Twentynine Palms, California, July 16, 2015 (U.S. Marine Corps/Levi Schultz) likely do not have the same capabil- complexity of global life as interaction and amplification or some change of fre- ity to broadcast information back to a complexity, or the condition in which the quencies of type.31 Natural selection relies leader. This type of highly asymmetric effect of a factor on a social system is de- on the selection of the agent, but a more interaction is different from symmetric pendent on the state of other factors.30 direct method of adaptation is the selec- interactions, in which all agents can Selection/Adaptation. The properties tion of the strategy. Instead of waiting for interact equally with all others. Uniform described so far are necessary for a system agents to reproduce, a good strategy can interaction is established when, for ex- to be complex, but for such a system to achieve successful results much faster. ample, there is a neighborhood in which become adaptive, it must have a mecha- In either the agent or strategy level of there are stores, schools, and churches. In nism for selection. Axelrod and Cohen selection, to retain effective adaptation all these places, people are able to meet use evolutionary biology’s concept of reproduction needs to occur. Natural and develop a network with a strong natural selection to understand the na- selection occurs in the absence of central- local bias. People know many others near ture of complex adaptive systems. While ized control and authority. The absence where they live and very few people, in not identical to the process of natural of central authority is what allows a com- comparison, who live elsewhere around selection, complex adaptive systems do plex system to adapt. However, defining the globe. Interactions, the authors write, operate in a similar way. Natural selection criteria for success is essential to harness- are what make complex adaptive systems requires a means to retain agents’ essen- ing complexity, as the title of Axelrod and come alive. David Earnest describes the tial characteristics, a source of variation, Cohen’s book implies. The framework 46 JPME Today / Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020
they present offers a way to “analyze system has a dampening property so making war most like a game of cards in
institutions and how they shape—and that the system maintains its essential which chance is as dominant a force as
are shaped by—the actions of individu- properties. When the actions of others calculation.36 Acting courageously in war
als.”32 Complex systems are constantly in a given population influence others, is one aspect of unpredictable human
shaped by the interaction of agents. One as in the Standing Ovation Problem (de- nature; another is the level of indiscrimi-
agent acts as a result of another’s action. scribed later), a tipping point may occur nate violence that people have shown to
In other words, actions are informed by that could lead to a cascading effect and be capable of committing.
other actions, and so on. undermine system stability. When agents A complicated system, as mentioned,
Axelrod and Cohen write that a do as other agents do, they can become is one whose individual parts (when
system is complex when there are strong locked into path-dependent behavior. broken down) can be studied and under-
interactions among its elements, such that Path dependency can lead to a nonlinear, stood. By understanding all the parts, it
“current events” heavily influence the magnifying effect amounting to a social is possible to understand and thus predict
probabilities of later events. A change in tipping point. the behavior of the system in its aggre-
strategy results from a system’s selection The model of a steel ball suspended gate. This is possible because the parts
process, which leads to an improvement above three equally spaced magnets pro- are actually independent from each other,
according to some measure of success. vides a good visualization of the trinity. even when they are in the aggregate.
Axelrod and Cohen call this process When the ball is pushed in one direction, A piston rod, when connected to the
adaptation. A complex adaptive system the magnets all act on the steel ball and camshaft, does not change the nature of
then, is a system that contains agents, or the ball reacts to the magnets. The path the camshaft itself or the piston attached
populations, that seek to adapt. the ball takes is highly dependent on, to the other end. These parts behave as
Nonlinearity. The nonlinear char- and sensitive to, its initial conditions, would be predicted given the context in
acteristic of the relationship among the but the path is difficult if not altogether which they function. The tendencies of
three tendencies in Clausewitz’s trinity impossible to predict in real life. There Clausewitz’s trinity cannot be isolated
is potentially the most significant and are many variables involved in the initial because the boundaries among them
dangerous attribute. The nonlinear conditions, such as wind, temperature, are indistinct—all three elements help
interaction is analogous to when “a symmetry of the ball, and strength of the define the others.37 In complex social
magnet is released over three equidistant magnets. Once the ball is set in motion, systems like Clausewitz’s trinity, the parts
and equally powerful magnets, it moves it is unlikely to gain momentum while or tendencies are interconnected and
irresolutely to and fro as it darts among it gyrates wildly. In this model, friction interdependent.
the competing points of attraction.”33 is one of the moderating forces that acts Clausewitz writes that war is a human
Predicting the trajectory of such a magnet to stabilize the ball and prevent it from social activity. According to him, the fun-
is essentially impossible, even though one reaching a tipping point. In war, an damental understanding of war is based
could anticipate its pattern. Any infinitely unmoderated trinity could manifest in on the human element. He observes that
small variation in initial conditions can irrational acts of large-scale violence. The war is “an activity in which each aspect
cause significant subsequent variations. violence may continue until it expands influences and is influenced by others,
Waldman explains that this can occur in into new boundaries where there are and this interrelationship extend[s] to the
war because it is an open system that is moderating forces that will dampen and social and political matrix of war.”38 In
sensitive to differences in initial condi- end the violence. It can be difficult to war, like life, all parts are interconnected
tion and external influences. The magnet predict under what conditions violence and constitute a whole. Waldman argues
model analogy captures the complexity of will extend beyond the rational tendency. that the trinity is not “simply a combina-
war. As Waldman notes, such complexity tion of these elements placed side by side.
makes it difficult to make “neat” analyses The Trinity as a Complex It is much more than this and is intended
of war. Clausewitz conceived of the trin- Adaptive System to reflect the incredible complexity of war
ity with complexity in mind, “a fact that Because of the overarching inherent in reality.”39 One cannot reduce the ten-
belies its seeming simplicity.”34 No single element of danger in war, no other dencies to individual elements and seek
tendency can be understood in isolation human endeavor is more turbulent, to understand them—the trinity is a unity
because, as Waldman points out, in war ambiguous, or reliant on luck than and must be comprehended as such.
all three tendencies simultaneously inter- war.35 Human behavior in the face of Isolating each tendency is not only
act, creating a nonlinear, unpredictable danger is largely an unpredictable vari- an insufficient way to attempt to under-
complex system. able across a given population. The stand the trinity as a whole, but it is also
A moderating tendency can cre- subjective nature of courage plays dif- paradoxically impossible to understand
ate a stable system. This means that a ferently among everyone. No matter the each element in isolation of the others.
moderating tendency can prevent minor extent of mathematical calculations in The scientific approach of reduction-
disturbances from amplifying into major planning, the roles of luck and chance ism begins to fail “as we move from the
disturbances. In other words, a stable interject probabilities into the equations, realm of complication to complexity, and
JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020 Cole 47reductionism no longer gives us insight no adaptive property that emerges as a be stronger than the other. Intuitively,
into construction.”40 The tendencies do result of their proximity. Clearly, when the greater the distance between op-
not exist independently; they are in con- the two parts are attached as designed, ponents and their respective use of force,
tinual tension and interaction with each they physically act and react in accor- the more likely rationality will predomi-
other. Their interaction is dynamic and dance to Newton’s laws of motion. But nate. When in personal contact with the
continually varying over time. Clausewitz at the macro level, the actions of the parts enemy, the hatred and enmity for each
creates an image of two wrestlers to illus- interact linearly (this example is only con- opponent can lead to excessive aggression
trate the interaction of the tendencies. He sidered at the macro level because at the and carry the violence to levels beyond
explains how the actions of one wrestler quantum level the interacting elements what are necessary, or legal, to achieve
are dependent on the interaction with the may, in fact, exhibit complex adaptive rational political objectives.
other. Not only would the actions of a characteristics). The Standing Ovation Proximity can also lead to group-
wrestler seem odd if not in the context of Problem is based on the premise that fol- think or mob behavior. If the elements
a match with another; the actions would lowing a performance, an audience will of hatred and enmity lie carefully below
be impossible, for they rely on the inter- respond with applause that may lead to a the surface, bringing them to the surface
active participation of the other. Much standing ovation. Each audience member would not take much effort. If one per-
like in any complex system, the actions of can choose whether to applaud standing son or small group is more likely than
agents are dependent on, and a result of, or remain seated. The social dynamics can another to act out primordial violence
the interaction of the other agents. lead an audience member to feel pres- on another group, it may be enough
They are not always in competition sured to stand and join her immediate to encourage another group to act the
with each other; sometimes they are even neighbors even if she despised the perfor- same way though they are at first re-
mutually supportive. The boundaries of mance, whereas if an audience member luctant. One act of primordial violence
each tendency are defined by the others. was farther away from those standing, the may unleash the hatred and enmity of a
For instance, policy is thought to be the pressure to stand would be diminished as population against its opponents. The
rational and goal-oriented attribute in a function of distance.43 The model can irrational aspect of base human violence
war. Yet policy cannot define war in isola- provide interesting insights into how the toward another may inspire a neighbor, a
tion because war as a whole is “pervaded irrational tendency of primordial violence friend, or a family member to act in a like
by great chance, uncertainty and fric- can predominate actions and reactions in manner. The violent actions may spread,
tion, while inescapable emotions impact war. the deviation of laws and norms will soon
behaviour.”41 The authors cite Robert Putnam’s become normalized, and what was once
War, Clausewitz writes, is never an 1939 writings on social capital as a public an unthinkable act will become common-
isolated act. Opponents are aware of each good, where social capital is measured by place within the context of the tagged
other. Individuals may be strangers, but the proximity and activation of agents. system. Once the violence subsides, and
they are not abstract entities. Clausewitz Putnam believed that social capital is the conflict ends, a society may look back
points out that war does not spontane- largely a byproduct of social interaction on its actions in disgust and disbelief.
ously break out unexpectedly. Each side that creates ties, norms, and trust within Under normal circumstances, they would
has an awareness of the others’ motives, a particular network. Interaction within not have acted like they did, but the
but an element of uncertainty always a social network can be measured in interaction and proximity to the violence
exists. This uncertainty, Clausewitz em- terms of proximity and activation factors. created perceived social pressures to act
phasizes, creates a moderating tendency Proximity factors determine how agents in a similar way. This is a hypothetical and
on each side that can prevent a tipping are likely to interact, and activation fac- theoretical example, yet there are many
point.42 tors determine the sequencing of their examples that demonstrate how probable,
Space and distance affect the interac- activity. In addition to physical proximity, under the right conditions, such actions
tion between opponents and shape the many other types of relational networks can occur.
interaction of the tendencies of the trin- establish proximity. Activation groups
ity. The Standing Ovation Problem that many processes together that affect the Conclusion
John Miller and Scott Page created is a timing of agent activity or the temporal The question that should arise while
general model that can be used to study structure of events.44 Social capital, then, reading Clausewitz’s description
the effect that proximity has on many is a result of the interaction of the features of the three tendencies regards the
social issues, such as drug use, schooling of social organization, such as networks, extent to which the trinity shapes the
choices, whether to recycle or not, and norms, and trust, that facilitate coordina- outcome of war. Of course, the most
a variety of other issues. In the example tion and cooperation occurring in both obvious answer is, “It depends.” While
of the piston rod and camshaft, no mat- time and space. this answer is true, it is not helpful.
ter how close the two parts are moved Much like the Standing Ovation However, if we understand what
together, there will be no effect on how Problem, proximity of opponents in war Clausewitz defines as the trinity and
they behave toward each other; there is can influence which tendency will likely the tendencies that make it a complex
48 JPME Today / Clausewitz’s Wondrous Yet Paradoxical Trinity JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020adaptive system, then by using com- rational and irrational forces from which at the Edge of Chaos: Reflections on Complexity
and Global Life, ed. Emilian Kavalski (Albany:
plexity theory as a framework, we can unpredictable behavior emerges. In other SUNY Press, 2015), 53–77.
understand how initial conditions affect words, both Clausewitz and Rosenau are 20
M. Mitchell Waldrop, Complexity: The
the interactions. Efforts to identify the stating that to study international rela- Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and
conditions under which events occur is tions and war, one must be willing to live Chaos (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992),
often a frustrating endeavor. The Arab in and with change to come to terms with 145.
21
Ibid.
Spring took many by surprise because the “turbulence of global life.”49 In the 22
Ibid.
they did not recognize the conditions end, the trinity is only an abstract model 23
Robert Axelrod and Michael D. Cohen,
that led to the events. Many other con- of the complex social structure of society, Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Impli-
flicts have destabilized entire regions designed to help political and military cations of a Scientific Frontier (New York: The
unexpectedly. In 1914, a series of seem- leaders understand and appreciate the Free Press, 2000), 3–5.
24
John H. Holland, Hidden Order: How
ingly unrelated events inadvertently decidedly unpredictable, emergent nature
Adpatation Builds Complexity (New York: Basic
sent European powers spiraling to war. of war. JFQ Books, 1996), 13.
David Earnest writes: 25
Ibid., 25.
26
Ibid., 27.
The spiral theory of inadvertent war Notes
27
Axelrod and Cohen, Harnessing Complex-
ity, 32.
provides one of the most compelling argu-
1
Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and
28
Ibid.
ments about emergent phenomena in world 29
Ibid, 63.
trans. Michael E. Howard and Peter Paret
politics: micro-decisions produced macro- (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989),
30
David C. Earnest, “The Gardner and
behaviors that none of the political actors 89. the Craftsman,” in World Politics at the Edge of
desired. One cannot simply reduce the war 2
John H. Miller and Scott Page, Complex Chaos, 31–51.
Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to Com-
31
Axelrod and Cohen, Harnessing Complex-
to preferences of the tsar, Kaiser, emperor,
putational Models of Social Life (Princeton: ity, 117.
or king. Thirty-seven million people died.45 32
Ibid., 159.
Princeton University Press, 2007).
3
Justin Kelly and Mike Brennan, Alien:
33
Waldman, War, Clausewitz, and the
World War I resulted from nonlinear How Operational Art Devoured Strategy (Car- Trinity, 70, 176. Waldman references Alan
and recursive relationships between lisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, Beyerchen, “Clausewitz, Nonlinearity, and the
September 2009), 6, available at . The authors reference Michael I. Handel,
34
Ibid.
individuals to consider the full range of Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought, 2nd
35
Clausewitz, On War, 85.
outcomes of their actions.46 Clausewitz ed. (London: Frank Cass Publishers, 1996),
36
Ibid., 86.
does not assert that the interactions of 345.
37
Waldman, War, Clausewitz, and the Trin-
Clausewitz, On War, 89. ity, 173.
the elements of the trinity are random 4
38
Ibid.
but that those elements self-organize and
5
Andreas Herberg-Rothe, “Clausewitz’s
‘Wondrous Trinity’ as General Theory of War
39
Ibid., 172.
create complexity. Self-organization is a and Violent Conflict,” Theoria: A Journal of
40
Miller and Page, Complex Adaptive
phenomenon that Earnest believes is a Social and Political Theory 114 (December Systems, 117.
largely ignored reality of world politics.47 2007), 48–73.
41
Waldman, War, Clausewitz, and the Trin-
Thomas Waldman, War, Clausewitz, and ity, 174.
Coming to terms with a turbulent 6
42
Clausewitz, On War, 78.
and ambiguous world does not mean the Trinity (Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publish-
ing, 2013), 6.
43
John H. Miller and Scott E. Page, “The
giving up on traditional understand- 7
Ibid. Standing Ovation Problem,” Complexity 9, no.
ings of international relations. It means 8
Herberg-Rothe, “Clausewitz’s ‘Wondrous 5 (2004), 8–16.
embracing the nonlinear predilection Trinity’ as General Theory of War and Violent
44
Axelrod and Cohen, Harnessing Complex-
Conflict,” 49. ity, 65–66.
and unpredictability of international rela-
9
Ibid., 52.
45
David C. Earnest, Massively Parallel
tions.48 Understanding both the nature of Globalization: Explorations in Self-Orgainiza-
10
Ibid., 64.
complex adaptive systems and the trinity 11
Ibid., 54. tion and World Politics (Albany: SUNY Press,
allows students of international relations 12
Waldman, War, Clausewitz, and the Trin- 2015), 3.
to increase their tolerance of ambiguity. ity, 7.
46
Ibid.
Ibid., 46.
47
Ibid.
James Rosenau advised that in order to 13
48
Kavalski, World Politics at the Edge of
understand international relations, one
14
Ibid., 48.
15
Clausewitz, On War, 89. Chaos, 16.
must be concerned with probabilities and 16
Waldman, War, Clausewitz, and the Trin-
49
Ibid.
distrustful of absolutes. Rosenau, further- ity, 53.
more, stressed the need to be genuinely 17
Kelly and Brennan, Alien, 6.
puzzled by international phenomena 18
Ibid.
and open to being proved wrong. The
19
Colin Wight, “Theorizing International
Relations: Emergence, Organized Complexity,
Clausewitzian trinity is a paradox, and and Integrative Pluralism,” in World Politics
it is wondrous in that it is a puzzle of
JFQ 96, 1st Quarter 2020 Cole 49You can also read
