| dc.description.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. | en_US |
