Editing On War (section)

== Criticism ==
Clausewitz and his proponents have been severely criticized by other military theorists, like [[Antoine-Henri Jomini]]<ref>{{Cite web |title =The influence of Clausewitz on Jomini's Précis de l'Art de la Guerre - p. 3/30 |url =http://www.homepage.bluewin.ch/abegglen/papers/clausewitz_influence_on_jomini.pdf |last =Christoph Abegglen |publisher =King's College London |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20070926204024/http://www.homepage.bluewin.ch/abegglen/papers/clausewitz_influence_on_jomini.pdf |archive-date =2007-09-26 |access-date =April 30, 2020}}</ref> in the 19th century, [[B. H. Liddell Hart]]<ref>{{Cite web |title =CLAUSEWITZ IN ENGLISH - The Reception of Clausewitz in Britain and America - Chapter 15. J.F.C. Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart |url =https://www.clausewitz.com/readings/Bassford/CIE/Chapter15.htm |last =Christopher Bassford |publisher =Clausewitz Com |access-date =April 30, 2020}}</ref> in the mid-20th century, and [[Martin van Creveld]]<ref name="macr">{{Cite web |title =Clausewitz vs. The Scholar: Martin Van Creveld's Expanded Theory Of War |url =https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/FKM.htm |last =K. M. French |publisher =Global Security |access-date =April 30, 2020}}</ref> and [[John Keegan]]<ref>{{Cite web |title =Clausewitz and the "New Wars" Scholars |url =https://www.clausewitz.com/opencourseware/Schuurman-NewWars.pdf |last =Bart Schuurman |publisher =Clausewitz Com |access-date =April 30, 2020 |archive-date =March 7, 2021 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20210307225641/https://www.clausewitz.com/opencourseware/Schuurman-NewWars.pdf |url-status =dead }}</ref> more recently.<ref>{{Cite web |title =B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy (1954) |url =https://www.classicsofstrategy.com/2016/01/liddell-hart-strategy-1954.html |last =Bradley Potter |date =January 19, 2016 |publisher =Classics of Strategy and Diplomacy, Johns Hopkins University SAIS |access-date =April 30, 2020 |archive-date =May 14, 2020 |archive-url =https://web.archive.org/web/20200514202526/https://www.classicsofstrategy.com/2016/01/liddell-hart-strategy-1954.html |url-status =dead }}</ref> ''On War'' is a work rooted solely in the world of the [[nation state]], states historian Martin van Creveld, who alleges that Clausewitz takes the state "almost for granted", as he rarely looks at anything before the 1648 [[Peace of Westphalia]], and mediaeval warfare is effectively ignored in Clausewitz's theory.<ref name=macr/> He alleges that Clausewitz does not address any form of intra/supra-state conflict, such as rebellion and revolution, because he could not theoretically account for warfare before the existence of the state.<ref name="Cormier 2013">{{Cite journal |last=Cormier |first=Youri |year=2013 |title=Fighting Doctrines and Revolutionary Ethics |url=http://jmss.synergiesprairies.ca/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/519 |journal=Journal of Military and Security Studies |volume=15 |issue=1 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140729225332/http://jmss.synergiesprairies.ca/jmss/index.php/jmss/article/view/519 |archive-date=July 29, 2014 |accessdate=August 12, 2014 |url-status=dead }}
</ref>

Previous kinds of conflict were demoted to criminal activities without legitimacy and not worthy of the label "war". Van Creveld argues that "Clausewitzian war" requires the state to act in conjunction with the people and the army, the state becoming a massive engine built to exert military force against an identical opponent. He supports that statement by pointing to the conventional armies in existence throughout the 20th century. However, revolutionaries like [[Karl Marx]] and [[Friedrich Engels]] derived some inspiration from Clausewitzian ideas.<ref name="Cormier 2013"/>

Referring to much of the current interpretation of ''On War'' as the [[The Emperor's New Clothes|Emperor’s New Clothes]] syndrome, Gat argues that instead of critically addressing the puzzling contradictions in ''On War,'' Clausewitz has been set in stone and could not be wrong.<ref name=":0" />