"It is simply not true that war is solely a means to an end, nor do people necessarily fight in order to obtain this objective or that. In fact, the opposite is true: people very often take up one objective or another precisely in order that they may fight"
About this Quote
War isn`t just politics with blood on it; sometimes it is politics invented to justify the blood. Van Creveld aims a blade at the tidy, statesmanly story we tell ourselves: that violence is regrettable but rational, a tool pulled from the drawer only when diplomacy fails. His provocation is to flip the causal arrow. Instead of goals producing war, war produces goals - ready-made banners that let a society indulge appetites it already has.
The intent is partly corrective, partly accusatory. Corrective because he is pushing back against the Clausewitzian reflex that treats war as an instrument of policy, a framework that flatters modern bureaucracies by making conflict legible and managerial. Accusatory because the line implies a moral laundering: leaders and publics dress up the desire to fight in objective-language (security, honor, liberation) so the violence can look necessary rather than chosen.
The subtext is psychological and cultural. Fighting can be intoxicating: it confers identity, hierarchy, belonging, even clarity. In that reading, "objectives" are less the engine than the narrative infrastructure - the story a nation tells itself to turn chaos into purpose and aggression into duty. Van Creveld is also hinting at institutional inertia: militaries, parties, and media ecosystems that thrive on mobilization have incentives to keep conflict thinkable, then find the cause that will sell.
Context matters: writing in the post-1945 landscape of limited wars, insurgencies, and "missions" that constantly morph, he is diagnosing why conflicts persist even when strategic aims are vague or unrealized. The quote works because it attacks our preferred self-image: rational actors, reluctant warriors. He suggests we are often something messier - and far more human.
The intent is partly corrective, partly accusatory. Corrective because he is pushing back against the Clausewitzian reflex that treats war as an instrument of policy, a framework that flatters modern bureaucracies by making conflict legible and managerial. Accusatory because the line implies a moral laundering: leaders and publics dress up the desire to fight in objective-language (security, honor, liberation) so the violence can look necessary rather than chosen.
The subtext is psychological and cultural. Fighting can be intoxicating: it confers identity, hierarchy, belonging, even clarity. In that reading, "objectives" are less the engine than the narrative infrastructure - the story a nation tells itself to turn chaos into purpose and aggression into duty. Van Creveld is also hinting at institutional inertia: militaries, parties, and media ecosystems that thrive on mobilization have incentives to keep conflict thinkable, then find the cause that will sell.
Context matters: writing in the post-1945 landscape of limited wars, insurgencies, and "missions" that constantly morph, he is diagnosing why conflicts persist even when strategic aims are vague or unrealized. The quote works because it attacks our preferred self-image: rational actors, reluctant warriors. He suggests we are often something messier - and far more human.
Quote Details
| Topic | War |
|---|---|
| Source | Help us find the source |
More Quotes by Martin
Add to List
