The Art of War

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[dust]

There doesn't seem to be much to say about ch.3, does there?

 

It's excellent advice. Nothing to argue with, nothing to be confused about, as far as I can tell.

[Marblehead]

The mission of an army is to threaten , kill people, and break things. 

No Stosh.  I think you have the army confused with the police forces.

 

The mission of the army is to protect the people of the ruler the army serves.

[Marblehead]

There doesn't seem to be much to say about ch.3, does there?

 

It's excellent advice. Nothing to argue with, nothing to be confused about, as far as I can tell.

I don't know.  I'm waiting for it to be posted.  And then, you don't know how easily I can become confused.

[dust]

I don't know.  I'm waiting for it to be posted.

 

Am I going crazy?

 

Michael posted it above..!  You already commented on it..!

[Marblehead]

Am I going crazy?

 

Michael posted it above..!  You already commented on it..!

I guess you are going crazy if you think I know what I'm talking about.  For some reason I thought we were still with Ch 2.

[Stosh]

No Stosh.  I think you have the army confused with the police forces.

 

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

One might also say, spinning the mission of an army, ,, that its to serve the people whom the ruler also serves. Or that none are serving anyone but themselves,, But an army is trained equipped ,prepared to ...kill threaten and break stuff... so IMO, it should be most accurate to say they have been trained for their misson.. as the ruling body has been trained selected for it's. Tsun tsu, does include for aggressive non defensive use of armies, does he not?

I can't disagree with you here.  I just had to make sure that we included the aspect of keeping the peace and defense duties that are performed by most armies.

 

Yes, aggressive action may at times be necessary.  The army must be prepared for that too.

 

When UN Forces are deployed it is always for the purpose of establishing and maintaining peace.  Sure, some nasty stuff happens but that is by the individual, it's not the goal of the mission.

 

So yes, aggression is an option if no other viable courses of action are viable.

[Stosh]

I can't disagree with you here.  I just had to make sure that we included the aspect of keeping the peace and defense duties that are performed by most armies.

 

Yes, aggressive action may at times be necessary.  The army must be prepared for that too.

 

When UN Forces are deployed it is always for the purpose of establishing and maintaining peace.  Sure, some nasty stuff happens but that is by the individual, it's not the goal of the mission.

 

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

You sure are trying to be nice to armies!

Well, Hey!, I am an Army man.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

It is important to note that Sun Tzu's first aim is to avoid war, such as can sometimes be done by the use of stratagems. If it cannot be avoided, he recommends to conduct it with the least amount of force possible. To that end, it should be waged as intelligently and decisively as feasible. That's why he is talking of the Art of War.

 

Sun Tzu's underlying philosophy is indeed Daoist. It is also the philosophy of the wise martial artist, in essence.

Edited August 18, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

Trouble is,   that , ones non-neutrality,   sets a stage for conflict. 

I was just on the phone with someone and we spoke to that.

 

I am not neutral.   I am pro me.  But only what I consider to be mine.  Only when that is violate would there be conflict.

[Marblehead]

It is important to note that Sun Tzu's first aim is to avoid war, such as can sometimes be done by the use of stratagems. If it cannot be avoided, he recommends to conduct it with the least amount of force possible. To that end, it should be waged as intelligently and decisively as feasible. That's why he is talking of the Art of War.

 

Sun Tzu's underlying philosophy is indeed Daoist. It is also the philosophy of the wise martial artist, in essence.

You get a total agreement from me for that.

 

Avoidance is always best.  This requires people to speak honestly with each other.  When we staop or can no longer talk with each other, other means must be found.

[Stosh]

I was just on the phone with someone and we spoke to that.

 

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Michael Sternbach]

A few further comments on chapter 3.

 

III. Attack by Stratagem

 

1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

An application in the business world could be to unite with a rivaling company rather than trying to destroy them (by pushing them out of the market). As we saw already in the last chapter, Sun Tzu advocates turning enemies into friends. That way, not only won't you have to fight them any longer - they will even add to your strength.

 

2. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

Among other situations, this principle can be useful in self-defence. In particular, I remember how I was once sitting in a bar, waiting for a friend: While letting my thoughts wander, I was playfully hitting the table in front of me with some light chops. Somebody passed behind my back and pushed my chair. I thought to myself: "Yeah, good you go home, dude, you seem to have had enough...", but didn't pay any further attention. However, the dude (a strong and aggressive looking young guy) decided to pay some more attention to me. He came back and yelled: "How dare you hit the table?!" "Excuse me?" He repeated it. I wondered if he misunderstood my hitting the table as a challenge; quite possibly, he was just looking for a fight! I turned to look at him and said calmly: "That has nothing to do with you. It's just between the table and me." All the while, I kept his whole body in my peripheral vision, ready to react to his slightest move. I also took note of his vital spots. I am still not sure what it was: The way I looked at him, the tone of my voice, my body language or perhaps something more intangible. Anyway, all of a sudden, the guy lost all his fighting spirit. He gave me the impression of a deflated balloon. He seemed confused when he stuttered: "I see... Well, have a nice evening." And took off rather quickly then.

 

3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; ...

Another important principle, to be sure: Prevent or disrupt the junction of the opponent's forces. Martial arts that advocate rapid multiple strikes (like the Kenpo styles and the Filipino arts) apply this principle - an attacker who is aching in several spots at once can no longer direct his aggressive energy towards you.

 

... the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

 

4. The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and variousimplements of war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more.

 

5. The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege.

 

6. Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

 

7. With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.

 

8. It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; ...

So opting for a siege can in fact make sense for a party that is far stronger than the opposition. Given enough time, the latter may even surrender without a fight. Or the stratagem of the Trojan horse could be applied to that end...

 

... if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two.

In the latter case, it's: Divide and conquer! This is another instance of scattering the enemy's forces, using the same principle like above.

 

9. If equally matched, we can offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, we can avoid the enemy; ...

A number of martial arts advice avoiding (evading) a greater force and countering from an advantegeous position, possibly even using the opponent's own force against them.

 

... if quite unequal in every way, we can flee from him.

Yeah, that sounds like good advice under such circumstances... A mouse should run and take cover when a cat shows up.

 

10. Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.

Well, really always?! History doesn't support that, it would seem...

 

11. Now the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak.

 

12. There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army:--

 

13. (1) By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army.

 

14. (2) By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds.

 

15. (3) By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.

In each case, the problem is that the ruler (comfortably sitting in his fortress) is ignorant of the reality of the battle field, thus he makes insensitive and inappropriate decisions.

 

16. But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other feudal princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away.

Then our author sort of summarizes what he said in the chapter:

 

17. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. ...

Taking the initiative is often of great advantage, not only in battles.

 

(5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

 

18. Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.

A principle that holds true regarding all kinds of "battles", even the ones at family meetings on Christmas eve. Understanding how both you and others are looking at things, and what possibilities each of you possess, is key to preventing or resolving many a conflict. But it's also crucial to other kinds of situations, like winning and satisfying customers, if you are business person. Edited August 19, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

... he is careful and calculating about it all in a way which makes it useful to consider.

When have you ever known me to be careful and calculating?

[Marblehead]

Good point Michael.  Your martial arts got you really into that chapter.  You done good.

[Michael Sternbach]

Thank you, Marblehead. While I consider myself lucky not having had any experience of war, I did and do give some thought to strategical thinking (oops, pun) and most certainly, there are many parallels between martial arts philosophy and the AoW. It seems likely that the book even influenced the development of MA to a degree. The interest of the AoW for most people lies not so much in its being an instruction manual for the battle field, but in its applicability in many other fields.

[Stosh]

.

Edited January 21, 2016 by Stosh

[Marblehead]

Yes, human nature being what it is we must be capable and willing to defend what we consider to be a part of our life.  I agree that there have been unnecessary wars but in the most part that is because people refuse to talk with each other and find ways to eliminate their major differences.

 

Of course, Sun Tzu talks of this often.

[Michael Sternbach]

Despite the overwhelming and ceaseless participation in this thread, it is time to move on to the next chapter. Where Sun Tzu teaches us all we need to know about:

 

 

IV. Tactical Dispositions

1. Sun Tzu said: The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.

2. To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

3. Thus the good fighter is able to secure himself against defeat, but cannot make certain of defeating the enemy.

4. Hence the saying: One may know how to conquer without being able to do it.

5. Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.

6. Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength.

7. The general who is skilled in defense hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other, a victory that is complete.

8. To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the acme of excellence.

9. Neither is it the acme of excellence if you fight and conquer and the whole Empire says, "Well done!"

10. To lift an autumn hair is no sign of great strength; to see the sun and moon is no sign of sharp sight; to hear the noise of thunder is no sign of a quick ear.

11. What the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but excels in winning with ease.

12. Hence his victories bring him neither reputation for wisdom nor credit for courage.

13. He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.

14. Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.

15. Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.

16. The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.

17. In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory.

18. Measurement owes its existence to Earth; Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of chances.

19. A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as a pound's weight placed in the scale against a single grain.

20. The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep.

Edited August 21, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[Marblehead]

As long as you don't ask me to stop posting so much.

[Marblehead]

I am a person who believes in a strong defense.  It is important to give our enemy the understanding that they will lose before they even start an aggressive act.  But this defense must be flexible.  It should be able to be turned into an aggressive force at a moment's notice.

[dust]

不可勝者守也  可勝者攻也

守則不足  攻則有餘

 

Security against defeat implies defensive tactics; ability to defeat the enemy means taking the offensive.
Standing on the defensive indicates insufficient strength; attacking, a superabundance of strength.

Legge

 

One takes on invincibility defending; one takes on vulnerability attacking.
One takes on sufficiency defending, one takes on deficiency attacking.

Sonshi

 

 

The thing is, neither makes much sense, and the English in both is horribly inelegant. They have clearly struggled to make the concept work.

 

We know from the Hequeshan text (transcription here) that the Chinese should probably be (with the bit after it added, because it's also different):

 

 

不可勝守  可勝攻也

守則有餘  攻則不足

昔善守者臧九地之下動於九天之上

故能自保而全勝也

 

Which means that (in my opinion) it should be translated:

 

 

To secure against defeat, defend;  in attack, victory is uncertain

Defense means a surplus (of food etc);  attack means a dearth

Those of old skilled in defense hid in the deep recesses of the earth, moved in the highest reaches of the sky

It is such that they were able to protect themselves and achieve victory over all

 

 

Suppose it should have been obvious, especially after dealing with all the different versions of Laozi, that there would be at least one extant text that disagreed with the received version. But I'm just now realizing how many little differences there are between the Hequeshan and the received text. Will keep an eye on it.

Edited August 21, 2015 by dustybeijing