Attrition: The flaws of On War and modern strategic thought
Alright, first and foremost, Carl von Clausewitz may have been a Great Commander in eventual practice, and is probably the rank below this in his short but very distinguished career. I do not suggest that On War itself was flawed, but that the future interpretations of it certainly were. I respect Clause's attempt at making a strict way of committing warfare with all folds enclosed in his theorum, however he died before he completed it fully, and there is so much to cover that it is probably impossible to write a full irrefutable text on the subject of war. The two Great Commanders (GC) he cites often are Frederick the Great and Napoleon, but he doesn't have more than a circumstansial reference to the rest. (For my personal interpretation of GC's and a relatively complete list, PM me) Whether it is a case of misinterpretation or not, On War cannot be thought of too highly, though it certainly has its virtues.
Clausewitz did see himself fit to condemn and judge Napoleon when he never achieved a major feat to parallel him, though he does exalt him at the same time, I personally think that one cannot fully judge a GC unless one is a GC. Napoleon's field record is around 50 victories to 2 losses, with enough skirmishes that it could be counted as high as 200 victories, and still only 2 losses. The vast majority of his victories are ingenius with outmaneuvering and successful strikes that led to the whole of Europe being terrified by his mere presence on a battlefield. Borodino is the only notable exception to this rule where Napoleon won with the now every day practice of frontal attack attrition. The eventual allied plan to destroy france was to avoid fighting him in battles and to go after his marshals, the plan worked. However, in 6 days while retreating on the Eastern French border Napoleon caused 120,000 casualties while suffering only 10,000 himself. Given that Paris didn't surrender easily he may have been able to stage a comeback against all of Europe, despite the 1812 campaign and the loss at Leipzig. Clausewitz isn't really Napoleon's successor.
I'll add more about WW1 and WW2 later, this is an incomplete argument but I suppose anyone can reply if they wish, and it may be better that you do but let's try not to get enmeshed in a pointless back and forth debate.