After the Napoleonic Wars, Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz wrote his seminal treatise, On War.  Published in 1832, On War was not immediately recognized as the authoritative work it is today.  Rather, in the post-Napoleonic period, Antoine-Herni Jomini, Clausewitz’s rival, gained prominence as the foremost European military theorist with his treatise Summary of the Art of War.  Indeed, by the American Civil War, most Western militaries had embraced Jomini.  West Point was among the academies to insert Jomini into its curriculum.  Jomini was taught to cadets who as generals would lead the Union and Confederate Armies.

Clausewitz took some time to catch on, but over time, he surpassed Jomini as the foremost Western military theorist.  Although Jomini is still taught, Clausewitz dominates the curricula of the staff, command, and war colleges.

Because of their prominence, both Summary of the Art of War and On War added to the military lexicon terms that now seem axiomatic.  Jomini, for example, is credited as the first to use the term “logistics” in its modern context.  On the other hand, Clausewitz was first to define war as an extension of national policy by violent means and to discuss the fog of war.

Another concept Clausewitz introduced was “center of gravity.”

“Center of gravity” refers to the one indispensable faculty from which all of a nation’s power emanates.  When a nation’s center of gravity is adversely affected, that nation loses strength.  When a nation’s center of gravity is too badly damaged, the nation suffers grievously and may even collapse.  Thus, it becomes incumbent on national leaders to protect their nations’ centers of gravity.  Conversely, per Clausewitz, competitive or hostile nations should strive to degrade their adversaries’ center of gravity.

One problem is that it is often difficult to identify a nation’s center of gravity, and a misread can have tragic consequences.  Witness the pitiful results the U.S. has had in military interventions since World War II (WWII).  I would argue that in all cases, the U.S. failed to adequately identify and attack its adversary’s center of gravity while simultaneously failing to identify and nurture its own.

How, then, does one identify a nation’s center of gravity?  A common method is by discussing national strength in terms of elements of national power.  Most often, elements of national power are framed in a taxonomy.  For this essay, I will use one of the simpler taxonomies, with four elements of power: diplomatic, informational, military, economic (DIME).  The diplomatic element of power is the use of negotiation and international relations to achieve national goals.  The informational element of power is a nation’s ability to collect, analyze, and use information.  The military element of power is the threat or use of force to achieve national goals.  The economic element of national power is the ability of a nation’s economy to support the other elements of power to achieve its national goals.

What is America’s center of gravity?  I contend that the economic element of power is, and always has been.  America’s economic power undergirded America’s military successes, in particular WWII.  This opinion is supported by volumes of historical research, including by Victor Davis Hanson in his history of WWII, The Second World Wars.  America’s economic power allowed it to deploy millions of men to distant theaters and win two world wars.  America’s economic power built ships faster than the Nazis could sink them and bombers faster than the Germans could shoot them down.

This claim is in no way meant to detract from the valor and sacrifice of American veterans.  My father and two of my uncles fought in WWII.  I spent over twenty years in the service and met many, many real heroes.  So I have a deep and abiding appreciation for service and servicemembers.  That, however, does not alter my contention that America’s center of gravity is not its military power, but its economy. 

What are the implications if the economic element of power is America’s center of gravity?  First and foremost, the Unites States must defend its economy from internal and external threats.  How?  By putting its economic house in order though sound economic policies and procedures.  Among the actions needed are reduced spending; introduction of pro-business policies; cessation of unwinnable foreign wars; and, perhaps most important of all, unfettered access to inexpensive energy.

I do not know if President Trump has ever read Clausewitz or heard of “center of gravity,” but he seems to instinctively understand the criticality of economy.  He has pledged to bring the budget in line, create a better environment for business, and ensure America’s access to inexpensive energy.  In this, he faces a Herculean task.  The Democrats will fight savagely to stop him from achieving these goals.  They will use all the tricks in their sorry playbook.  They will lie.  They will fear-monger.  They will slander.  Whatever it takes to stop President Trump from being successful, the Democrats will do.

For example, consider how Democrats are currently demagoguing tariffs.  Suddenly, Democrats are free-traders.  In their coordinated, talking-point manner, media pundits that tariffs will increase inflation.  Where was their concern when Biden’s spending sent inflation into double-digits?

Frankly, predicting the effect of tariffs now is dubious at best, for a couple of reasons.  First, no one knows what tariffs if any will be imposed, or on whom.  Second, to claim that tariffs are un-American is ignorant.  Tariffs are as American as apple pie.  The United States maintained high tariffs through most of its first hundred and fifty years.  In fact, one of the South’s grievances against the North prior to the Civil War was the U.S. tariff, which drove up the costs of English manufactured goods.

The most common refrain from the talking heads now is reference to the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930, which they claim deepened and prolonged the Great Depression.  True, after Smoot-Hawley, U.S. trade fell by about two thirds.  However, the economic situation today is different from in 1931, and those decrying tariffs now fail to account for other factors, which might have had equally deleterious effects on the Depression-era economy.  For example, Franklin Roosevelt’s massive spending programs arguably prolonged the Depression by taking money out of the private sector.

Suffice it to say, no matter what President Trump tries to do on the economy, the left will criticize him.

In summary, Clausewitz defined “center of gravity” as the source of national power.  Subsequent theorists have developed taxonomies listing interrelated elements of national power.  In so doing, they might have diluted the importance of the concept of center of gravity by conflating the source with the manifestation of national power.  In the case of the United States, for example, the source of power is the economy.  One manifestation of that power is military strength.  Therefore, President Trump’s focus on righting the economy is the correct policy from a perspective based on Clausewitz’s concept of center of gravity.

Image: Gage Skidmore via Flickr, CC BY-SA 2.0.