Clauswitz's Trinity

Carl Von Clausewitz’s definition of war and his theory of “the remarkable trinity” are still relevant today with non-state actors’ presence around the world.   The purpose of this essay is to expand on the applicability of Clausewitz’s theory in today’s wars where non-state actors play a huge, more global role.   Many theorists disagree and believe Clausewitz’s “remarkable trinity” is obsolete.   I totally disagree.   This paper explains the role played in war each one of the actors of the trinity: the people, the armed forces, and the government.   The trinity connects each element with its respective human actors: the people, the army, and the government.   In other words, taking together both elements and actors, it means that in war, whether limited or total, it is necessary to maintain equilibrium between them.   The feelings of the population, the professional qualities of the army, and the policy of the government must be articulated in a well-balanced strategy that allows the nation to achieve its national security objectives.
Clausewitz's “remarkable trinity” is comprised of three categories of forces:   irrational forces (violent emotion, i.e., "primordial violence, hatred, and enmity"); (2) non-rational forces (i.e., forces not the product of human thought or intent, such as "friction" and "the play of chance and probability"); and (3) rationality (war's subordination to reason, "as an instrument of policy").   Theorists interpret this as "the people, the army, and the government. This “remarkable or paradoxical trinity,” as it has been called, is Clausewitz’s framework, or model, for understanding the changeable and diverse nature of war.   The "people, army, government" interpretation of the trinity has caught on among both proponents of Clausewitz and his critics. It has, for example, been enshrined in U.S. Army doctrine.  
Conflicts in the world today often involve armed opposition groups who act autonomously from recognized government. Included in this...