Bret Devereaux

Refutation: “War is the father and king of all: some he has made gods, and some men; some slaves and some free.” - Heraclitus (475 BC)

That's not a refutation. Clausewitz wouldn't, I suspect, meaningfully disagree with that sentence. Heraclitus is noting that war is important, not offering a theory of how it should be conducted.

History goes to show that war can be considered as something autonomous and possible to stem from Homo Sapiens passions. Biology>Clausewitz.

Non-sequitur. Just because humans are evolved for war doesn't mean that there is no reason to create best practices for the actual performance of war. We've created social norms to systematize all sorts of biological functions...

Agreed. War can be political, but nature of war is not.

You need to read your Azar Gat more closely! (It is, by the by, the best actually scholarly argument for the evolved-for-war position, as opposed to the rubbish 'evolutionary psychologist' peddling one finds online).

Gat spends quite a lot of time on the reasons which impel humans to war and what he comes up with are essentially political concerns: access to land, resources, mates and security. Classic grand-strategy statecraft stuff. Even in very early societies.

It's easy to see it all as feuds and vendettas, but 1) it isn't, and 2) even the feuds and vendettas are actually strategic and policy oriented, aimed at establishing and maintaining credibility in an environment where a reputation for fierceness is the only form of deterrence.