Nowhere does Clausewitz define proper and improper balances, and his assertions about the elements of the trinity being variable and his rejection of arbitrary relationships seem to negate proper and improper balances between the three. And he claims that in World War I and the Vietnam War, one or two elements got out of balance. However, nowhere did Clausewitz make any warning about war spiraling out of control because of a lack of balance in the trinity. Such a statement simply wasn't made by Clausewitz. He was providing insights to understanding, not directions, when he discussed theory.
Theory then becomes a guide to anyone who wants to learn about war from books.
It is meant to educate the mind of the future commander, or, more accurately, to guide him in his self-education, not to accompany him to the battlefield . . . I also agree with them on many of their counterpoints, including their criticism of the sweeping generalizations made. But as anyone who has published will confess, it is nigh impossible to compress textbooks of material into the few pages of a journal article and still get your point across. The idea is to challenge, not prove, a point, and to cause further research and thinking on the subject, which I hope I have done. The two letter writers seemed most disturbed with the possibility that without a strategic mission, the Air Force could not justify its separate existence.