War and conflict are undesirable elements of a normal society, as expounded by theorists and moral ethos. However, they are justified by scholars and statesmen as inevitable facts of life, since man in nature is self-seeking, and the preservation of sovereign existence and values rank topmost as nations engage in international relations. The work runs a comparative view of strategy, operational philosophy, justification as national expediency and risk of engaging in war of two seasoned strategists in history- Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz, whose thoughts have shaped the psychology of modern warfare. The work employed a secondary method of data collection from the works of these two scholars and others who have expounded their thoughts. It also explored documentary research and a Time-Series approach in analysing the collected data. Findings show that, while their thin areas of agreement border principally on the supremacy of selfinterest over international norms and morality, their realist position is inclusive on the contrary, they are robust in their support for the desirability of warfare as an instrument of policy and governance, operational methodology, tactics, and strategic planning. While Sun Tzus preference extols victory without bloodshed, Clausewitz prefers a combative methodology that measures success in war by the level of destruction of the enemys will and capability. The paper recommends that the positions of both scholars still have relevance to prosecutors of modern warfare as such, more research is required to enrich the literature of war and conflict of the scholars.
Ike et al. (Thu,) studied this question.