War is the continuation of politics by other means.

Politics is taken from the Greek word Politikos meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens". It is a process in which groups of people (i.e. government as my opponent points out in his limited definition) make collective decisions. All warfare is based on the process of making decisions; in which the actions are carried out in battle; stand-offs, or even presence in the Area Objective (AO). Therefore war is not separate from politics; it is in fact; a continuation thereof. If we are to define politics; we need more than a simple phrase taken from a long list of definitions. Meriam-Webster elaborates on what my opponent defined it as; saying: "The art of or science concerned with guiding or influencing the governmental policy/The art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government." If we are to apply these definitions; then we can clearly see examples that point to what Clausewitz was saying. However; we first must reject the idea that my opponent requires I must prove that politics is the ONLY cause for people; as the soldiers fighting war do not fight for the same reason as a governing body in most every case. Neither should I have to prove that wars were fought for the advancement of a nation; as politics can govern many other groups; and not just sovereigns. Worker's Unions are political groups; these are not nations. Religious groups (such as the pope) are political groups; and do not necessarily require a sovereign government. We should also understand that his statement "I will work to show that indeed there are clear examples where other motivations rather than just the advancement/benefit of the nation was in view concerning wars in which nations found themselves involved" still negates to disprove the 'continuation of politics by other means'. The 'other means' may often take the form of 'other motivations', including many that will be discussed here. So for my opponent to disprove the 'continuation of politics by other means', he must then show examples of wars that have had NO political aspect; as this would be the continuation thereof. He must also prove that such motives were not for the purpose of achieving one's agenda; as this would be an act of politics. I would like to start by addressing the post of my opponent:"My opponent will have the burden of proof due to the fact that majority of the authority of historians do not hold a view of my opponents "interpretation" of Clausewitz's statement." This is a double standard, as virtually every historian does not hold the same view of 'interpretations' from Clausewitz. This is due to the lack of clarity of his work. Clausewitz died before completing the revision of his book. The only part of On War that was complete was Book 1; and Clausewitz said in a side note left on his deathbed; that this should be considered as the basic backbone of his work; in which all the other Books should be interpreted by this view. Historians alike disagree on meanings of the book; and sadly very few have a military history of their own to apply this book to. On War is mandatory reading in virtually every leadership school in almost all modern militaries. The professionals in Clausewitz's subject should be considered as the most knowledgeable on the subject; as they have applied his teachings to the real world. To understand this better; I will use the copy of On War that I have; which is the Infantry Journal Press, translated by O.J. Matthijs Jolles; published by the US Army Infantry Journal. It is the standard text for many NATO nations; and is considered to be the most accurate English translation in the world. Such a translation shall help to clarify much confusion among historians; who have edited and even gone so far as to take out portions of Clausewitz's work. "The art of or science concerned with guiding or influencing the governmental policy" If we look to our current operations in the Middle East; we can clearly see the examples of this applied to real life. The governing policy in which we are introducing to Afghanistan and Iraq is our own; and the use of military force to guide these governments is evident in our actions and in our strategy. Although these operations are not formally declared wars; they are acts of warfare; and are evidence of this political involvement. "The art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government." Again; our actions can clearly see this set into motion. The art of war is defined by Clausewitz as an act "to compel our adversary to do our will". Such agenda is a political objective. Our "will" is our policy. Our policy is achieved through enforcing it upon our enemy. These are the words of Carl von Clausewitz. The objective in war is to win and hold control over our enemy forces; and of our enemy government. So again; the act of war is to 'compel our adversary to do our will" meaning it is to obtain political control. Rules of Engagement; Law of Armed Conflict; Code of Conduct; Geneva Conventions: Although Clausewitz said these do not belong to war itself; but are separate; as they themselves do not affect the method of war; they do serve to demonstrate a continual increase in the political involvement in our military. Soldiers today are required to be more professional and extremely higher trained than ever; because they have to deal with continually changing political laws set out for combat. The Geneva Conventions are a set of laws a soldier must adhere to in the treatment of Prisoners of War and Non-Combatants. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is a set of laws he must adhere to in the method of conduct in the battlefield. The Code of Conduct is a continuation of the LOAC. The Rules of Engagement (ROE) is a political method in which he must act in combat. It is the rules to define when and how he can take action; and what his limit of force is. Laws are a set of legal policies; and as we know what the act of policy lies under is politics. Religious fundamentalists: Although religious beliefs are the root cause of these movements; they are rooted 100% in a political agenda. Take for example Iran, whose religious stance against non-Islam has set forth a national policy of refusing to acknowledge the existence of Israel. Their government fronts billions to international terrorist organizations; whose religious policy is the global control under their rule. To rule; even under the laws of one's religion, is an act of policy or politics. These actions are still the continuation of politics by other means. We should also address the definition of policy; a word derived in Middle English meaning government (pertaining to the Greek word Politikos). Meriam-Webster defines policy as: -A prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs/management or procedure based primarily on material interest/a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions/a high level overall plan embracing the general goals and acceptable procedures especially of a governmental body. So we can see that politics is the act of implementing policy. Policy is the act in which war is conducted; and which war is fought to set; and which war is declared; and which war is won. A war ends when one nation's government signs an accepted policy given by the victorious government. Thus; war is the continuation of politics; by other means.