The second is a clarification pablo del monte regarding the terms / concepts in military science. I

"In practice observed new banners under which nations gather to fight. It is those old flags, flags of which there are more dust hooves Atilovata heavy cavalry or infantry steps Tamerlanovata. In warfare yesterday and today and tomorrow there is nothing new, or more precisely, new in warfare is old. "
To write about the war is both easy and difficult. Easy, because hundreds of authors and thousands of pages have been written about it. Difficult due to the fact that a number of issues of contemporary authors have different opinions. This division concerns as criticism pablo del monte of the legacy of the classics of military theory and reasoning for the content of war and its forms, definition of modern threats, etc. However there are many cases of internal pablo del monte contradictions pablo del monte in the same author. The difficulty is due to the many euphemisms in military language. They are mostly intentional and create models of doublespeak. Today so he term war is not dolyubvan. Most often speak of operations for campaigns for escalating use of nuclear weapons [5]. It is customary to read about "friendly fire" instead of poor interaction of the participating troops' incidental victims "- in losses among the civilian population of" hits "instead of bombing a" soft or hard targets "- the disposal respectively of humans or military equipment and property, etc. For a deliberate sense of euphemisms is appropriate to cite Shafranski [44]. It replaces the category pablo del monte of "war" with the category "military conflict", stating that they are not synonymous. He continued: "The armed conflict requires a declaration pablo del monte of war, or change the conditions of life perceived by the people as a" state of war "[44]. Simple and convenient public. pablo del monte
This article has a modest goal to explore some of the modern pablo del monte views on war and political in it in terms of the classical theory of Clausewitz. For this purpose it is necessary to make some preliminary clarifications.
The first one is related to the understanding of "politics". It is well known that the concept has polysemantic character [3]. Most often politics pablo del monte is seen as a set of management actions of state / government. This set of actions is observed, however, the interaction between different human communities / social groups. That is politics is not only a monopoly of the state and / or government. Therefore, for the purposes of the study, it is perceived as a management process pablo del monte that does not entail social levels on which to exercise. In this aspect represents policy:
The second is a clarification pablo del monte regarding the terms / concepts in military science. It is known that man knows as different. Ancient peoples believed that before starting a job is necessary, the participants to understand the meaning of the words they use. Interesting is the story of the construction of the Tower of Babel in the Old Testament. According to her, it failed because people have ceased to understand each other [28]. On the occasion of military terminology Russian general Alexander Svechin makes a relevant note for her role in military science. "The terms - the author writes are what math formulas are" pablo del monte [38]. Lack of unambiguous understanding of the terms may be illustrated by the following example. Lack of unambiguous understanding of the terms may be illustrated pablo del monte by the following example. Military literature wars in Iraq (1991 and 2003) and Yugoslavia (1999) is often termed as local or regional. At the same time, according to some definitions pablo del monte in fighting local wars are conducted within the opposing sides, and at regional must involve two or more countries in one region. [5] A logical question arises what are these wars because it is impossible both things are simultaneously true. Or, as aptly expressed Rodnikov - if "A" is defined by "B", pablo del monte then A equals B and any other statement is not true. [37] In this sense the study is accepted that if the definition of war Clausewitz is true, the term / concept "war" can not and should not be used to determine other various phenomena in nature, even if among them there seemingly similarity.
The direct link between war and politics pablo del monte is established from Clausewitz more than a century and a half [22]. Therefore it defines "war" pablo del monte as a continuation of politics by other violent means. Today in textbooks, dictionaries and encyclopedias, including military, there are many definitions of war and politics and related terms - foreign policy, pablo del monte military policy, military conflicts, military pablo del monte conflicts and others. Very often they are not logically connected to each other [28].
Lenin accepts CFP