The Return of the Fog of War: Why Clausewitz Feels More Relevant Than Ever

The “fog of war,” a term coined by Carl von Clausewitz, originally described the uncertainty and chaos inherent in battle. Soldiers on the ground often lack full visibility of the battlefield, commanders face conflicting reports, and critical decisions get made with incomplete information. In the 19th century, this concept referred mostly to tactical confusion—smoke, dust, and bad communication lines.

Fast forward to today, and the fog of war has evolved into something far more complex and strategic, especially when looking at the current chaos in Syria. Forget cavalry miscommunication—now it’s about overlapping state, non-state, and ideological conflicts layered so thickly that even intelligence agencies struggle to map out who’s fighting who and for what. Take the fall of the Syrian regime and the rise of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a prime example. Multiple players with conflicting objectives have turned the region into a perfect storm of confusion. Russia backs the Assad regime, while the U.S. juggles counter-ISIS operations and partnerships with Kurdish groups. Turkey has its own security concerns tied to Kurdish expansion. Meanwhile, HTS, initially an offshoot of al-Qaeda, has been expanding its control while balancing fragile relations with local Syrian factions and international players. Sprinkle in Iranian influence, sporadic Israeli airstrikes targeting Iranian positions, and the remnants of ISIS cells, and the result is a conflict so tangled it makes 19th-century battlefields look like chess boards.

What makes this modern fog of war even more dangerous is how impossible it’s become to measure success or failure. What does “victory” look like when different factions have entirely different goals—territorial control, ideological dominance, regime preservation, counterterrorism, or even regional balance? A fitting example of this chaos is when Russian and U.S. forces, both technically fighting ISIS, nearly came into direct conflict around Deir ez-Zor in 2018 due to clashing local alliances—turning an anti-terror mission into a near-superpower clash.

Today’s fog of war isn’t about smoke on the battlefield—it’s the impossible web of objectives, alliances, and interests where no side fully understands the game they’re playing. Clausewitz would be taking notes. This fog isn't just a theoretical issue—it's a critical operational challenge. In such environments, making reliable forecasts or assessments becomes nearly impossible. With shifting alliances, blurred objectives, and constant power shifts, the ability to predict outcomes or make solid key assumptions vanishes. Clausewitz’s fog of war has never been more relevant.