War as a Science
The Foundations of the Science of War. By Col. J. F. C. Fuller, D.S.O. (Hutchinson. 218.) THOSE who visited Army Headquarters in France during the Wir found the military spirit at the Tanks Corps quite of its own sort, distinct, peculiar. The Tanks were the British contribution to " the mechanics of Armageddon," and those Who were creating for these new, instruments new tactics or even strategy consciously felt thernselves to be innovators, pioneers, revolutionaries. They aimed, further, at a new psychology, a new theory of war. Among their intellectuals Colonel Fuller held a conspicuous place. Years ago he was spoken of, in half jest, as the British' Clausewitz ; - but few expected him to writea book ip which healain4 in so.., many words in, .the text to be a Copernicus, a Newton, a Darwin, who 'regards evenClausewitz as unphilosophic.
It is certainly true that no one has ever written a book about war and armies that bears the least resemblance to this. Colonel Fuller founds his new science on a sort of psycho- logical metaphysics that is more suggestive of Hegel than of Clausewitz or,Foch. His interlocked categories _of three com- plementary attributes would offer congenial food to a philo- sophic mystic. In a thoughtless world, " c.hloroformed by the inhalation of catchwords," it goes against the grain to complain of too much philosophy ; but these quite unneces- sary adventures into pure thought obscure rather than clarify the real originality of idea and of style. The onslaught on the malady called " military myopia," and on the standard methods of instruction is vigorous and particular, supported by modern incidents and rich in appropriate quotation. The blind adoption of maxims, sometimes false in essence and usually out of.date, has destroyed foresight throughout a whole hierarchy of military leaders and teachers. The positive con- tribution is not less valuable than the criticism, but it is more obscure. Professional soldiers will complain with vigour that it is all very well to preach the duty of imagination and the value of genius, but how does the critic in hard practice help tis to exercise the one or discover the other ?
The answer is that behind the art of war, which is action, there exists a science of war, which is knowledge ; and that we shall never perfect the art till we recognize that such a science exists. Nearly all the critics, including Clansewitz, have denied this. Colonel Fuller regards himself as a Coper- nicus because he asserts it and claims to have discovered its base. But he never makes the discovery explicit. The book consists a prolegomena to the alleged .science. It is, never- theless, intensely stimulating and best when most concrete. The advance in mechanical and chemical instruments has involved radical changes, changes that affect principles as well as individual actions. We can never win security under these new threats, while we teach students facts instead of putting them on the trail of causes, and while we murder the desire of initiative by close-order drill, while we are afraid of genius instead of creating a general ability to recognize it.
If Colonel-Fuller has not quite succeeded in docketing- his alleged discovery, he has, nevertheless, illuminated the field. -His searchlight is brilliant, far-reaching and well directed. It concerns students of peace as well as of war. The end of 3var can only be reached by the road of the knowledge of war. The greatest soldiers—at least in the reviewer's personal experi- ence—have been the most passionate' and effective haters of war, because they only know.
Previous page
