NAME: JEREMIAH FOONG KANG YI MATRIX NUM. : D20111047679 FACULTY: LANGUAGE AND COMMUNICATION PROGRAM: TESL PROGRAM CODE: AT 06 SEMESTER: 3 SESSION: 2012/2013 COURSE: LITERARY CRITICISM COURSE CODE: BIS 3023 GROUP : B ASSIGNMENT: CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON HENDERSON THE RAIN KING LECTURER: MR. SEVA BALA SUNDARAM A/L A. M MARIAPPAN For this novel, I will be critically analyzing it using two theories, namely the â€œFormalist Criticismâ€ (which is also known as â€œNew Criticismâ€) and â€œReader-Response Criticismâ€.The reason I choose both these criticism theories are because I personally opine that these two theories can realistically reflect our views on the literature read as readers. By the Formalist Criticism approach, I will firstly provide a plot summary of â€œHenderson the Rain Kingâ€. â€œHenderson the Rain Kingâ€ was written by Saul Bellow in the year 1959. In this novel, Saul Bellow names his main character, or also known as â€œthe protagonistâ€, Eugene Henderson. Eugene Henderson is depicted, in this novel, as a troubled, middle-aged man. He is physically attributed with a large body frame, a bumbling loud voice, and ossesses great physical strength. Contradictory to his struggling life, his family background is one which is rather wealthy. Eugeneâ€™s father was a famous author and he left him three million dollars when he passed. He is not at all amazed neither pleased with the life he has been living all the while and plans to heed his inner voice and go out to search for a better life, which he believes, lies in Africa. Before leaving for Africa though, he tried numerous ways to satisfy his weird calls by playing the violin, drinking, and shouting at his wife.He carried on with his plan to Africa with his friend Charlie Albert and his wife. He however set off to travel on his own upon finding a pampered travelling style Charlie practices. Eugene meets the Arnewi tribe and tries to help to settle their drinking problem which was caused by a frog infestation at the bottom of their drinking well. Eugene failed to help when he blasted the frogs together with the well. It only made the situation worse. Eugene went on to meet the Wariri tribe with Romilayu and becomes the Sungo, or â€œrain kingâ€, when he lifts a heavy idol during the rain ceremony.Later on, the elders sent Dahfu to find a lion which is supposed to be the reincarnation of Dahfuâ€™s late father. As he fails and is killed, Eugene is supposed to be crowned the King as he is the Rain King, the next King in line. Eugene does not desire to be king, and flees from Africa back to his own home. Eugene finds that it is only through love that he had gained all these while when he reflects on his relationship with Smolak the bear in Ontario and his relationship with the orphan boy on the plane back to the United States. The novel consists of twenty-two chapters of roughly equal length.Throughout the novel, flashbacks are used as a major element of. In the early stages of the novel, more precisely, in the first three chapters of the novel, Hendersonâ€™s reminiscence about his motives for departing for Africa. The setting in this novel is considerably uniform, however, throughout the entirety of the story, settings such as Europe, Connecticut, and New York are scattered randomly around. It is noticeable that the subsequent chapters are set in Africa, where most of the plot of the story develops. Through flashbacks, Eugene revisits his place of origin and time periods from his earlier life.Literary tools such as foreshadowing and cliffhangers are used to keep the reader flipping through the pages eagerly for more. Generally, throughout the most major parts of the story, the setting is held in Africa, in the mid-1950s. Scenes from Connecticut, New York City, and Europe during the Second World War are intermittent when Hendersonâ€™s rambling narratives take place. Actions which take place in Africa are mostly held in the Arnewi and Wariri tribes. The African plains show up once in a while when Henderson and Romilayu wander through the African desert. However, a major part of the story takes place in the Wariri tribe.At the denouement of the story, Newfoundland is also included in the setting of the story, where Henderson touches down from the plane. Physical settings aside, symbolical spiritual settings are also widely included in the novel. A touch of pre-human quality in the landscape and a tinge of childhood memories Henderson had is depicted through the beautiful slight pink in the sky and the sharpness of the rocks surrounding the Wariri village, respectively. Also, after deplaning from Newfoundland, Henderson is said to be walking on ice. This icy-setting shows that Henderson has clearly made his escape from Africa and has started his life anew.Hendersonâ€™s word choice in the narration of the novel is of great interest to the readers as he makes reference to the Bible regardless of how informal and colloquial his style is. However informal his style is, though, historical events and psychological theories are explained in a rather offhand albeit knowledgeable method. The colourful description of his narration is made up of detailed explanations made possible through visuals and audio. The inability of Henderson speaking in the native African language makes it complicated as Romilayu and Dahfu are required to translate for him directions and advices made on the barren land of Africa.The appearance of African words such as â€œgrun-tu-molaniâ€ appeal to our minds and memories strongly and further enhances the elaboration of the African culture. For this novel, the third person point of view is used. In this case, the third personâ€™s point of view is the point of view of Eugene Henderson. A conversational and more intimate approach is applied in the narration in the story. Examples which show this are â€œAs you can see for yourselves, these are all impossible answers (HRK 133)â€ and â€œIâ€™ll tell you why (HRK 7)â€.The entirety of this novel is told as if Henderson reminisces about his journey to Africa, and also the will and events which led up to his decision to go to Africa. Dialogues are noticeable in some parts of the novel, but the essence and the message of the story is generally brought to the readers by Hendersonâ€™s descriptions and inner monologue. The characters who appeared in â€œHenderson the Rain Kingâ€ are as follows. The main character in the story is Eugene Henderson. Even when Henderson is the main character in the story, he is the anti-hero of the novel. Character-wise, he is a bumbling man, always angry and is confused.His physical attributes are big, shocking appearance, and possesses great strength. Hendersonâ€™s father leaves behind 3 million dollars. Henderson had married twice and has five children. He was stubborn and pushed on for combat duty even when he was declared to be too old for it. He got injured by a land mine during the Second World War and received the Purple Heart upon his return. Henderson owns a pig farm but deep down inside, he ambitions to be a doctor. Henderson is constantly plagued by a voice that says â€œI wantâ€. He tries various activities and hobbies which he hopes are able of relieving his unknown desire.He tries playing the violin, drinking, and even shouting at his wife. When none of these methods seem to make any effect on satisfying his weird and unknown desire, he goes on to visit Africa with Charlie Albert and his wife. He was fifty five. Upon realizing Charlieâ€™s travelling style which he thinks is too contemporary and boring, Henderson leaves with Romilayu to visit the Arnewi tribe. He attempted to solve the Arnewi tribeâ€™s difficulty which was the infestation of frogs in their drinking well by bombing the frogs. Instead, he bombed and wrecked the whole drinking well.Regretful and sad, Henderson left for the Wariri tribe with Romilayu. Most of the plot of the story develops from here. Henderson is crowned Sungo, the Rain King, after being able to lift a heavy idol during a rain ceremony in the Wariri tribe. Henderson was supposed to be the Kingâ€™s successor after Dahfuâ€™s passing. However, Henderson did not want to be King and escaped from Africa to live a complete new life back in the United States. Frances Henderson is Hendersonâ€™s first wife. Frances is, as described by Henderson, tall, handsome, elegant, and sinewy. Frances was married to Henderson just to please Hendersonâ€™s father.Henderson once told Frances of his dreams of becoming a doctor. His ambitious dreams was revoked and laughed at by Frances. Lily Simmons Henderson is Hendersonâ€™s second wife. She is known throughout the story as only â€œLilyâ€. She has a sweet face, fair, and large. Lily is not prone to scolding. Instead, she moralizes. Lily had married twice before she got married to Henderson. She had previously married a man from Baltimore and an abusive broker from New Jersey who is named Hazard. In the story, Henderson describes Lily as one who is not very clean, a liar, and a con-artist.Edward Henderson is Henderson and Francesâ€™ eldest son. Edward can be considered as Hendersonâ€™s pride as Edward is clean-cut and smart. Edward drives around in a shiny sports car. Henderson always believed that Edward would not get a lover. One day, Edward brings home a girl from Honduras and proclaimed to Henderson that he loves her. However, Henderson chose not to believe it. Ricey Henderson is Henderson and Francesâ€™ eldest daughter. She is pretty. Ricey takes a child from the backseat of a car one Christmas and is eventually expelled from boarding school. Alice Henderson is Hendersonâ€™s youngest daughter with Frances.The twins are Hendersonâ€™s two children by Frances. Charlie Albert is to Eugene Henderson, a childhood friend. They both attended dancing classes together in the year 1915. Charlie is a year younger than Henderson and also a bit richer than him. Charlie was once a cameraman in the army. Henderson was Charlieâ€™s best man at his wedding. Charlieâ€™s wife resented Henderson because Charlie forgot to kiss his wife at the wedding. Henderson joined Charlie and his wifeâ€™s honeymoon trip to Africa in the first part. Dick Henderson is Eugene Hendersonâ€™s older brother. Dick dies in a rather tragic and ridiculous way.He was shooting a broken fountain pen with his pistol and got engaged in a chase by the police. He crashed his car in an embankment during the chase and jumps into the river. Dickâ€™s cavalry boots got filled with water when he jumped into the river and Dick drowned. Dick was considered by Eugene as the â€œsanest of usâ€. Klaus Spohr is the artist who paintâ€™s Lilyâ€™s portrait. There was once when Klaus and Lily observed Henderson kiss Clara, Klausâ€™ wife, passionately. Doctor Spohr is the cousin of Klaus Spohr. He is the dentist who replaces Hendersonâ€™s bridgework.Romilayu is Hendersonâ€™s guide and translator in Africa. Romilayu tells Henderson that he is in his late thirties. However, he looks wrinkly and much older. Currently Christian, he shows signs of tribal living in his past as he has tribal scars on both his cheeks and ears. He is a patient companion to Henderson. The Arnewi Tribe are the fist tribe Henderson visits in Africa. They are loving and warmly welcomed Hendersonâ€™s visit. They were suffering from a drought and their cattle are dying. They are ruled by Willatale. Iteloo is a prince of the Arnewi tribe. He learned English in Beirut with Dahfu.He loses to Henderson in a wrestling match even when he equalizes him physically. Willatale is Iteloâ€™s aunt and the queen of Arnewi. She is a Bittah, which means she is the most revered in the tribe and has husbands as well as wives. She has cataract in one eye and wears a lion skin as a robe. Henderson describes her as a happy woman, stable, and good natured. Mtalba is the queenâ€™s sister and also is a Bittah woman. She is beautiful and pampered looking with indigo hair but is obese. She proposes to Henderson in their traditional way but rejects him when he blows up their well.The Wariri tribe is the second visited tribe by Henderson in Africa. Henderson becomes the Rain King of the Wariri and a close friend to their King, Dahfu. Dahfu is the kin fog the Wariri tribe. Dahfu studied in a medical school but had to return to his dying father in the Wariri tribe. Dahfu impresses Henderson with his charm and philosophy. King Dahfu keeps a lion named Atti and trains him. He dies while trying to capture his father-lion Gmilo. Horko is the uncle of King Dahfu and the man sent to meet Henderson on the day of the rain festival.Horko speaks some English and French because he traveled with Dahfu when he studied abroad. The Bunam is the head priest of the Wariri tribe. The Bunam believes that Henderson can lift the idol during the rain ceremony. Henderson believes that the Bunam communicated to him to encourage him to lift the idol without needing to talk to him. Turombo is the strong Wariri man who lifted Hummat at the rain ceremony. He was misunderstood as one who is shadowed by his past as he did not lift Mummah. It is learned later on in the story that Turombo did not want to lift Mummah because he understands the danger in being a rain king.Queen Yasra is Dahfuâ€™s mother and also the widow of Gmilo. She believes the words of the Bunam who said that Atti represents power of an evil sorceress. Therefore, she begs Henderson to make Dahfu get rid of Atti. The executioner is assistant to the Bunam in the Wariri tribe. He has a narrow face and leathery appearance. He was dressed in white on the day of the lion hunt and guards King Dahfuâ€™s corpse after he passed. Gmilo is Dahfuâ€™s father and the former king of the Wariri tribe. Another approach to analysing this novel will be the â€œReader-Response Criticismâ€.The â€œReader-Response Criticismâ€ is based on what the reader feels and perceives about the story after reading the piece of literature. As a reader, I was quite fazed and taken aback when I read the beginning of this story. I was shocked at how unsettled Henderson was even when his father had left behind him such a large amount of money. I think Hendersonâ€™s pursuit of happiness and the meaning for life is strong and objective. Henderson is to me a steadfast person and does not get swayed easily by external factors. What makes me feel pitiful towards Henderson is when he was trying to help the Arnewi tribe out by killing the frogs.His intention started out as a good one but ended as an act which displeased the Arnewi tribe. It was lucky for him that Itelo did not kill him after such an act because Itelo is his friend. There is a point in the story which I do not agree with the narrator himself. He had seen such bitterness in the Wariri tribe since the first day he got there. He did not have any good moments to savour. The only acceptable moments are when King Dahfu shared with him some philosophy and ways of life. This interests Henderson and us, the readers, but other than that, all the other happenings are bitter.Therefore, it is quite illogical that Henderson did not choose to escape in the earlier part of his visit to the Wariri tribe. However, this is only my view and opinion. Generally, this novel has raised my awareness in issues such as the pursuit of meaning in life and the pursuit of happiness. At the end of the story, Henderson realizes that what he has been going after all this while is love. This is a story worth reading and telling as it bends the human mind into different concaves of perception to what is worth going after, what is worth our pursuit, and what is worth holding on to.Bibliography 1) Henderson the Rain King by Saul Bellow. (2000). Retrieved from http://www. bookrags. com/studyguide-henderson-the-rain-king/ 2) Bellow, S. (1976). Henderson the rain king. NY: Penguin Books. 3) Dobie, A. B. (2011). Theory into practice: An introduction to literary criticism. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning. 4) 50 Plus One Great Books You Should Have Read: And Probably Didn't. Retrieved from http://books. google. com. my/books? id=HPDqaTLKOEEC;pg=PA194;lpg=PA193;dq=%22Henderson+the+Rain+King%22;as_brr=3;ie=ISO-8859-1;output=html;redir_esc=y
The work of Carl von Clausewitz continues to bring about heated debate in the 21st Century. While many scholars see Clausewitzâ€™s On War as an indispensible military thought in the modern times, others view it as an obsolete or morally repellent argument for unlimited, unrestrained and brutal warfare.  Notwithstanding the opposition of present times, this renowned work is considered incomplete and its lack of prescriptive contents has subjected it to interpretations and discourses. Facing this encumbrance, the study of On War has to go beyond textual analysis to an appreciation of the historical context which influenced the authorâ€™s thinking and the evolution of the book over time. Fortunately, with the enduring efforts of numerous historians, we now know that Clausewitzâ€™s experiences in the Napoleonic Wars and his study in the age of Frederick the Great (and beyond) allowed him to create a unified, all encompassing theory of war.  To date, much literature has been written to attest to the relevance of Clausewitzâ€™s theories in modern warfare and assert the timelessness of On War. This paper examines the insights gained from the great studies on Clausewitzâ€™s works and re-confirm the continued relevance of his theories by: (1) identifying the character of 21st Century warfare, followed by (2) an interpretation of Clausewitzâ€™s theories and his underlying thinking, and finally (3) examining the relevance of the theories concerned and determine how they can be applied in the 21st Century. The 21st Century Warfare The character of warfare has evolved since the passing of Carl von Clausewitz 180 years ago. The likelihood of massive clashes between onventional forces seems to be diminishing and the world has seen the dawn of non-state actors challenging established states with asymmetric warfare techniques. William Lind aptly chronicled the evolution of warfare in four generations, which began with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. He described present day warfare as fourth-generation warfare (4GW) that is characterized by a universal crisis of legitimacy of the state, where militaries had to fight against threats that are transnational in nature and are very difficult to deal with. 5] The capabilities of these threat entities stem from the effects of globalisation that have enabled further, faster, deeper and cheaper means to reach around the world.  In addition to the physical reach, todayâ€™s information technology has also brought about various modern communication avenues that allow collaboration and ready access to information. Consequently, this also allowed rapid access to media pipelines enabling belligerents to exploit them to further their cause. These have bestowed transnational terrorist organisations such as Al-Qaeda, and the more sophisticated Hezbollah, with the abilities to acquire equipment, knowledge and instruments that rival those of the traditional state to wage wars. According to Lind, 4GW also brings together the relevance of mass firepower dominated by artillery in the second-generation warfare and manoeuvre concepts of third-generation warfare, making it more complex than ever before. Therefore, we can conclude at this point that 21st Century strategists and war-fighters have to contend with both conventional threats from traditional states and unconventional threats from non-state actors, both whom are capable of waging wars. Intricacies of Clausewitzâ€™s Work To grasp how Clausewitzâ€™s theories can be applied in 4GW, it is necessary to decipher the underlying thinking of the authorâ€™s work. Many of Clausewitzâ€™s theories articulated in On War are remarkably well integrated despite the fact that On War is an unfinished book. Without going into details, this can be illustrated using Clausewitzâ€™s famous paradoxical trinity. The constructs of the trinity comprises three interrelated components of war, namely â€œthe commander and his armyâ€, â€œthe peopleâ€ and â€œthe government. â€ Clausewitz connected each of these human actors to three sets of forces: (1) The commander and his army are paired mainly with non-rational forces of riction, chance and probability, (2) the people are paired mainly with irrational forces that refers to the emotions of primordial violence, hatred and enmity, and (3) the government, which is less of a concern in this paper, is paired mainly with the rational force of calculation and reasoning.  As illustrated, Clausewitz has unified many ideas and concepts he developed over the period of study in his own youth and middle age. The following discussion will examine the specific ideas and theories concerned. The Irrational Elements Irrational forcesâ€ is one of the three forces that were interpreted by Bassford to provide a symmetrical representation of dominant tendencies in Clausewitzâ€™s trinity.  While the three sets of forces were paired with each component of the trinity, it must be stressed that Clausewitz actually used the word â€œmehrâ€¦zugewendetâ€ in his original German manuscript, which means â€œmainly,â€ in the associations.  Thus, it is clear that the author did not rule out that any one of the forces can be present in all components to some variable extent, and that this is the reason behind dialectical relationships between components. Indeed, looking at the real world, military men and politicians are also members of â€œthe people,â€ given that they may belong to different parts of society. In that sense, irrational forces are linked to all human actors and therefore its dominant beliefs will provide the fuel for political decisions. This in turn may shape the outcome of a military campaign, which is consequential based on Clausewitzâ€™s argument that â€œwar is an instrument of policy. â€ In his book, Clausewitz contended that the â€œ[population is] an integral element among the factors at work in warâ€ and conceived the idea of â€œPeopleâ€™s War,â€ defining it as a state-sponsored insurrection by armed civilians against an invader in support of action by army and the regular forces of allies.  This phenomenon was observed during the Napoleonic period where enormous armies that were raised using conscripts led to overwhelmed defending states to adopt â€œanother means of warâ€ by arming their people. 15] When a state has to wage a Peopleâ€™s War, the significance of irrational forces heightens and the interplay amongst the three components of Clausewitzâ€™s trinity become more distinct. In the light of this discussion, it implies that the irrational elements in war can be referred to both the human actors of Clausewitzâ€™s trinity, predominantly â€œthe peopleâ€, and also, what Clausewitz called it, the â€œblind natural forceâ€ of primordial violence, hatred and enmity.  Friction, Chance and Uncertainty The concepts of chance, uncertainty and friction can hardly be examined independent of each other. When Clausewitz himself introduced friction, he brought in chance as the key subject to friction in war: â€œThis tremendous friction cannotâ€¦be reduced to a few points, is everywhere in contact with chance, and brings about effects that cannot be measured, just because they are largely due to chance. â€ For Clausewitz, friction is neither extrinsic nor abnormal; it is the reflection of the effects in the real world. Friction can be generation internally within the military â€œmachineâ€, as in physics, and externally by the collision of two opposing armies.  Thus with the concept of friction, Clausewitz conveyed that one can never fully anticipate how the battle will unfold, and it is only through a good military system and the strong will of the commander that friction in war can be counteracted.  Throughout On War, apart from Clausewitzâ€™s pervasive mention of chance, its definition can nowhere be found. Beyerchen aptly brought in the three forms of chance conceived by the late nineteenth-century mathematician, Henri Poincare, to explain Clausewitzâ€™s interpretation of chance. The first form is a statistical random phenomenon whereby Clausewitz referred to the role of possibility in a commanderâ€™s assessment. While some statistical analysis can be used, this form of chance requires the judgment of an experienced commander in war. The second form is the amplification of a microcause, where Poincare explained on a system point of view that certain deterministic system can cause disproportionately large effects at later time. Clausewitz work has embedded this idea in his very articulation on uncertainty and friction where the various contact of chance at the micro level, which may be concealed, can develop and produce effects at the macro level. The third form is the function of analytical blindness which is a result of simplifying the real world phenomena by people and making war seems like a linear concept instead of a complex and nonlinear state of affairs. With all the complexities involved, Clausewitz stressed that the play of chance goes beyond the commanderâ€™s simple calculation of probability to a need for an intuition that allows him to exploit chance to his advantage. Culmination of the Attack Clausewitz defined culminating point of the attack as â€œthe point where [the attackerâ€™s] remaining strength is just enough to maintain a defence and wait for peace. â€ Moving beyond that point exposes the attacker to counterattack from the enemy â€œwith a force that is usually much stronger than that of the original attack.  According to Clausewitz, losses will usually be greater than the gains in an attack. As the army advanced, its lines of communication will be stretched, forces will be pulled aside to control areas and other situations may be developed which will turn against the attacker.  As a result, the attacker has to stop at some point to rest and adopt a defensive posture for a period of time before proceeding. This is the point where the commander has to decide and exercise his imagination, as Clausewitz concluded, â€œwhat matters therefore is to detect the culminating point with discriminative judgement. â€ Center of Gravity Antulio J. Echevarria II, a lieutenant colonel in the U. S. Army, observed that center of gravity (CoG) appeared more than fifty times in On War, and explained Clausewitzâ€™s conceptualization of the centre of gravity as being based on mechanical sciences, just as he had conceived his theory on friction.  Clausewitz described CoG as a focal point, â€œthe hub of all power and movement, on which everything depends. â€ By this, which is often misunderstood, he does not mean that the CoG is the source of power. In fact, it is the centralizing function that holds power system together, and in some cases give them purpose and direction. Clausewitz qualified that CoG is valid only when the enemy, â€œwhether a single state or an alliance of states, have a certain unity and therefore some cohesion. â€ When the enemyâ€™s CoG is identified, Clausewitz advocates that all â€œenergies should be directedâ€ at this point to defeat the enemy.  Relevance of Clausewitzâ€™s Theories in the 21st Century Thus far, the paper has briefly built a foundational understanding on present day warfare and some of Clausewitzâ€™s brilliant ideas. Already it is quite obvious that many of Clausewitzâ€™s thoughts still stand in present day context and are potentially applicable in 4GW. This proposition is contrary to what many critics have suggested; On War as bloodthirsty, misguided and obsolete.  These comments can easily be dispelled because they are often made on the superficial understanding that went little beyond the textual analysis of the book, and often built upon erroneous readings from others. Nevertheless, the fact remains that On War was written almost two centuries ago where the political, social, economic and technological evolutions of today could not be foreseen by Clausewitz. Therefore, in order to render Clausewitz his deserved place in the todayâ€™s modern age of technology, the following discussion on his ideas and concepts will not be critical towards the material changes in the 21st Century. Significance of Irrational Elements in 4GW It is axiomatic that conflicts nation-states engage in today relate closely the effects from irrational elements. Following the September 11 attacks, the world saw invasions into Afghanistan in 2001 followed by Iraq in 2003 by coalition forces. In the case of Operation Enduring Freedom (the war in Afghanistan), the cause of war stemmed from worldwide public uproar and support to root-out terror. Given the mandate by the people, the governments gain legitimacy and political will to commit their armed forces to the enduring global war on terror (GWOT). On the other hand, Operation Iraqi Freedom presented a case of â€œunconvincingâ€ invasion of Iraq. As seen from how the operation unfolded, the war lost its popularity amongst the populace due to controversies that were presented as a result of the prolonged and seemingly unending war. Pressures began to be exerted by the public on their governments to draw down their armed forcesâ€™ involvement. After three years of coalition occupation in Iraq, it was found that majority of the British and Canadian people believed that the war in Iraq was unjustified.  A poll conducted on by the BBC World Service in January 2007 had also shown that 73% of the world population was against the handling of the Iraq War by the U. S.  It is thus arguable that the large-scale withdrawal of coalition forces which followed in 2009 was largely a result of public disapproval. Therein, it aptly demonstrated the significance of irrational elements, even in the context of the GWOT. Another noteworthy case in the GWOT will be the utility of â€œforceâ€ by terrorists. Their strategy resembles the â€œPeopleâ€™s Warâ€ which Clausewitz described. Despite being technologically and numerically inferior, Taliban operatives in Afghanistan are able to capitalize on the people, the natives of the land, to solicit like-mindedness through provocation and propaganda of the deed.  Until the NATO coalition is able to sever linkages between the terrorists and the natives, a repeat of the U. S. efeat in Vietnam War remains in prospect. This is an arduous task but nevertheless is in progress. It is thus clear that irrational elements of both sides (own and the native population) have to be part of the strategic and operational considerations in the 4GW. Without due considerations to pacify and buy-over the irrational elements will result in an unbalance trinity and ultimate defeat. Influence of the CoG in 4GW The wide recognition and various adaptations by various militaries of the CoG concept allow this paper to further examine on how this concept influenced the conduct of modern wars. If the current war in Afghanistan is a Peopleâ€™s War, like the paper has suggested, the native population becomes a logical focus. Indeed, the new strategy adopted by NATO since 2010 has placed the Afghan people as the CoG in this conflict.  Two of the main thrusts announced by NATOâ€™s Supreme Allied Commander, Admiral James Stavridis include the protection of the Afghan people and to conduct effective strategic communication to win their hearts and minds.  Correspondingly, the U. S. â€™s Af-Pak strategy that is in effect since early 2009 also focuses on the protection of Afghan people as a top agenda. Over the past one year, U. S. counterinsurgency (COIN) efforts have been more deliberate in their intelligence gathering and analysis to ensure that the most appropriate actions are taken, even at the lowest tactical level. In essence, the enhanced intelligence work effectively supports the traditional hunt-the-enemy role and at the same time, prevents unnecessary collateral damage thereby keeping the population safe.  With this brief account of the coalition effort in Afghanistan, it suffices to show that tremendous energies from all levels are directed at the CoG. Therefore, it can be concluded that the CoG concept remains relevant in 4GW and once it is identified, it produces consequential downstream effects that influences operations at the operational and tactical levels. Relevance of Friction, Chance and Uncertainty in the Technological World While it was earlier noted that Clausewitz would not have envisaged the technological development of today, his arguments on the variables of war â€“ friction, chance and uncertainty â€“ had not been altered. In fact, the element of uncertainty has now been compounded by the introduction of a new dynamic variable â€“ technology itself. The advancement of technology has brought about chain of effects, impacting the social, political, bureaucratic, managerial and psychological systems. All these caused a quantum jump in the complexity of warfare.  Correspondingly, this led to the increased specialization and compartmentalization of the military which in turn create internal friction. If the contact with chance creates friction, like what Clausewitz suggested, with the existing military technologies today that enable longer range communication and observation capabilities, the amount of contact with chance increases and hence friction from external sources. Take for instance, intelligence collection â€“ with so much information that can be acquired with the use of todayâ€™s technology, that is far from being unreliable as during Clausewitzâ€™s time, the commander may be overwhelmed and become paralyzed just by trying to sift the relevant data from the trivial ones. As Clausewitz put it, â€œWe now know more, but this makes us more, not less uncertain. â€ While technology today may have eradicated many of the old-time difficulties, it created new problems. Among the problems, include a tendency of over-reliance on technology which may hinder the development of intuition and readiness to accept risk, the qualities of commander that are necessary to exploit chance and counter friction. Hence, in todayâ€™s military context, friction that arises from both external and internal sources should be dealt with.