Kaiser Wilhelm II and Helmuth von Moltke

It is of course, to the great German strategist, Carl von Clausewitz, that we owe the first precise formulation of the concept that lies behind this question. "War is no past time," wrote Clausewitz, "it is a serious means to a serious end. . . . War . . . is an act of policy. . . . War . . . is a continuation of political activity by other means. . . . The political object is the goal, war is the means of reaching it. . . . War should never be thought of as something autonomous but always as an instrument of policy. . . . War is simply a continuation of political intercourse, with the addition of other means. . . . Its grammar, indeed, may be its own, but not its logic. ..”

So, when the possibility of war presents itself, political and military leaders must ask themselves, What specific policy objectives will be served by going to war, what specific national interests require these objectives to be pursued, and are these objectives and interests worth the price that war more often than not demands? I have said that political and military leaders must ask this question. A more appropriate word would be "should." Because often they don't, and when they don't, the end result can be disastrous.

Professor Crowl, best known for his works on the Pacific campaign of World War II, shared these thoughts as part of the 1977 Harmon Memorial Lecture at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Let us take for example Imperial Germany in 1914. Why did the Kaiser and his advisors opt for war on two fronts against both France and Russia? Though they claimed to be victims of encirclement, the Germans stood in no clear and present danger of attack from any of their neighbors when the July crisis erupted. Their dominance in Central Europe was unchallenged; they were in essence a "satiated power.” Yet they gave their Austrian allies a "blank check" to make outrageous demands on Serbia which could only provoke Serbia's ally Russia into military action which would almost inevitably escalate into general war. Why?

The final answer has eluded historians for 60 years and more. Were the Germans powerless to hold Austria in check? Not really. Compromises over the ticklish Balkan question had been reached before and could have been reached again. Were they covetous of French and British overseas empires? Yes, but not enough to go to war over a few remote colonies in Africa and Asia. Was internal domestic discontent so worrisome to German leadership that they welcomed a war as a device to short-circuit social unrest? Some historians have suggested this as an answer but not altogether convincingly.

The answer, I am afraid, is simply that the Kaiser and his entourage and especially his military advisors were stupid. They lacked the intelligence to analyze the costs and benefits of the war on which they so blithely embarked. They neglected seriously to ask the fundamental question: What is the objective, and is it worth it?