Art of War - 5th century BCE
The Art of War is an ancient Chinese military treatise dating from the Spring and Autumn Period (roughly 771 to 476 BC). The work, which is attributed to the ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu ("Master Sun", also spelled Sunzi), is composed of 13 chapters. The Art of War is the first known study of the planning and conduct of military operations. Each one is devoted to a distinct aspect of warfare and how that applies to military strategy and tactics. For almost 1,500 years it was the lead text in an anthology that would be formalised as the Seven Military Classics by Emperor Shenzong of Song in 1080. The Art of War remains the most influential strategy text in East Asian warfare. It has a profound influence on both Eastern and Western military thinking, business tactics, legal strategy and beyond.
The book was first translated and published into French in 1772 (re-published in 1782) by the French Jesuit Jean Joseph Marie Amiot and a partial translation into English was attempted by British officer Everard Ferguson Calthrop in 1905 under the title The Book of War. The first annotated English translation was completed and published by Lionel Giles in 1910.
My main takeaway from The Art of War is its simplicity and its extraordinary age. It is a bare bones blueprint of common sense which serves to point out how far we wander from Sun Tzu’s basic wisdom on the battlefield, in business, sports and everyday life.
ReplyDeleteThe Taoist idea that the strong must help the weak and will be rewarded by Heaven is forgotten in the quest for power and money, as exemplified today by “me first”Donald Trump and those who regard him as a champion for their own narrow purposes.
The Powell Doctrine, which follows Sun Tzu’s practical strategy, has been shoved aside in recent conflicts. Powell espoused having a clearly defined goal, striking hard and fast, and leaving with minimal lasting damage to all sides. Viet Nam was run by government deception with ill defined purpose. The high ground went to the enemy, we alienated the population we claimed to be defending, and our civilian leaders, for selfish political reasons, ignored the reality of the losing battle plans , which led to thousands more lives lost on both sides, with shame and sorrow to follow even to present day.
Yet we didn’t learn its bitter lessons. We’ve been mired in Afghanistan for 17 years. Our president and his administration have no plan or policy. We flounder with no measurement of movement there or in other Middle East conflicts, with the only result being loss of respect in the world and in ourselves.
In contrast, the 2 Big World Wars, as far as US involvement, were short lived and clearly defined in terms of purpose and strategy. Our population was involved and supportive because we knew why we were fighting. After clear victory, leaders chose not to humiliate the defeated but to help them rebuild. We could say Heaven looked favorably on us until we strayed once again into intolerance and selfish narcissism.
So I see that Sun Tzu’s principles still have value, but they are ignored in an increasingly tyrannical and divisive age. We can hope for peaceful correction rather than war as “a sacred restorative for the body politic,” a clear- the- air, begin anew sentiment leaving destruction in its wake. It is fool hardy to think Heaven still has our back, and change in world order over time is inevitable. Perhaps the Art of War with the age of its popular wisdom and modern application can save us if we read and heed, and recognize ourselves.
You are right that modern disciples of the art of war seem to miss Sun-Tzu's core message, pointed out in my comments below, that the biggest victory is victory without fighting. Though it could be argued that the politics and maneuvering are the epitome of that statement as his book was as much about governance as it was warfare.
DeleteAlso noted that in the case of Viet Nam, Ho Chi Minh successfully applied the principles of the book. Westmorland and McNamara did not.
DeletePerhaps the failures of our generals in the modern age come from not applying the tenets of this book. Patraeus did but other events ended his career. Diplomacy was also a big part of Sun-Tzu's teaching and world. Modern diplomacy is more about self-defeat than anything. I don't think he expected his teaching to end all wars, just avoid them and end the ones that started. He was living in a period of perpetual war but so are we. We just use different words.
DeleteThe Art of War shares a great deal with classical documents like the Constitution. Taken literally, the quartering of troops and what exactly a militia of the people means do not apply to everyday life and can seem redundant/intuitive. Same can be said with concepts such as a military document advising generals not to attack a numerically superior force with a small one, the cost of siege operations, or the importance of the high ground. The power of documents like the Constitution and Art of War for our purposes is not specifically what they explicitly say but what they suggest, what they allow, and how they are applied. One can see the modern application of the concepts of Art to disciplines like military science, business, and athletics. Military science, both in the East and the West, has evolved as it has with aid of many documents, including in no small part The Art of War.
ReplyDeleteArt of War’s study of terrain, numerical differences, supply lines, non-conventional warfare, etc. was revolutionary. While other works that are part of the Chinese classical cannon on warfare share some overlap, none laid down considerations a commander needed to take into account with the same detail but still with the same freedom to adapt as this book did. Its scientific approach to battle urged a successful general to consider all elements and choose the best possible outcome which would guarantee momentum before the battle even began. The emotion was removed from battle and replaced with calculation. All things were considered possible deterrents or solutions to the mathematical problem of large scale combat. Many modern concepts such as the attack in force, blitzkrieg, and hearts and minds can find their roots in the writings of Sun-Tzu. It might seem common-sense or common knowledge simply because military commanders have been using or ignoring his teaching to their benefit or peril for so many years. Napoleon, McClellan, Mao Tse-Tung, Ho Chi Minh, Rommel: all students and successful demonstrators of the consideration of pre-battle elements.
ReplyDeleteI suppose the biggest detraction I can make is not so much the fault of the author(s?), but in the translation. I imagine Chinese from that era was rather nuanced and there probably isn’t a Rosetta Stone that could define key words absolutely. Comparing versions can led non-native speakers to very different conclusions and interpretations of the tactics and intention. Even native speakers have long debated the validity of the work let along its phrasing. The version I read made it a point to emphasize that the most widely accepted version of the work is a combination of tomb texts, Japanese translations, later Chinese versions, and the Jesuit translation into French. Lots of room for error there. In the end, it speaks to the strength of the lessons being taught that they can survive that much linguistic entanglement and resonates not only in the traditional field of warfare but non-related disciplines such as car manufacturing and professional football.
ReplyDeleteHaving never read the book in any form but references and quotes, it was nice to see it in its complete form and understand the completeness of the work. Its simplicity and dependence on situational awareness makes it masterful. I can start to see its influence on some other works in the poster such as Matilda’s strategy to take down the Trenchbull and throughout American Gods. My favorite part might be it is actually more about avoiding fighting in conflict resolution than force of arms.