nigel99 689 #1 December 30, 2009 Being holidays and wanting a break I decided to read Sun Tzu's Art of War. What intrigues me is this is a book that was written 2600 years ago, and yet it appears that the USA has lost sight of the basic "logical" thought that is laid out. I have singled out the USA as I believe in the UK our strategy and involvement is largely that of subordinate/support for the US and we would not be in either Afganistan or Iraq if the US was not there. There are to many points of interest, where I feel that the US is "ignoring" basic principles to itemize them all but the following extract seems as good a place as any. Quote There are five dangerous faults which may affect a general: (1) Recklessness, which leads to destruction; (2) cowardice, which leads to capture; (3) a hasty temper, which can be provoked by insults; (4) a delicacy of honor which is sensitive to shame; (5) over-solicitude for his men, which exposes him to worry and trouble. The above list of 5 "sins" that a defeated general usually exhibits at least one. I see the US as guilty of items 1,3,4 and 5. I would be interested in other opinions - but based on this book (which I believe is still used as a basic military strategy guide) I believe that we will ultimately be defeated in both Iraq and Afganistan. In case you haven't read it the link is The Art of WarExperienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #2 December 30, 2009 You've made valid observations. Most of the major failures in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other US military interventions) could have been easily predicted and prevented if the military leaders (uniformed and civilian) had studied Sun Tzu's treatise. Not all generals leading troops in the war on terror have ignored Sun Tzu's perennial wisdom. I previously posted about one such general here.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #3 December 30, 2009 A personal motto of mine is "he will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." This is part of the issue with warmaking being done by civilians. I understand the reasoning but the problems lie with Generals and flag officers telling the hard truths and being sacked because the military requirements do not match the political desires. I think that The Art of War should be read by all. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #4 December 30, 2009 "There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." -Sun Tzsu "We'll stay the course." -George W. Bush 4/15/04 Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #5 December 30, 2009 Quote"There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited." -Sun Tzsu "We'll stay the course." -George W. Bush 4/15/04 A prime example of a war where the political desires and military requirements did not match.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 689 #6 December 31, 2009 QuoteYou've made valid observations. Most of the major failures in Afghanistan and Iraq (as well as other US military interventions) could have been easily predicted and prevented if the military leaders (uniformed and civilian) had studied Sun Tzu's treatise. Not all generals leading troops in the war on terror have ignored Sun Tzu's perennial wisdom. I previously posted about one such general here. It is pretty amazing that a strategy book over 2000 years old can contain so much "wisdom". The more I have thought about it the more I think that in general the US has become fixated on the last few pages on how effective "spies" are. I am pretty sure the US has the most effective and comprehensive surveilance systems that have ever existed. I don't wish for the US to fail but I was reading the book for business strategy but the more I got into it the more I was nodding my head and thinking of Iraq/Afganistan. A number of years ago I worked with a guy who had quite strong opinions about asymetric warfare and that in essence the more powerful the US got the more likely it was that it would be subjected to asymetric warfare methods - where primarily the enemy does not follow the "rules of war". I have forgotten most of what he said but he firmly believed that the "stronger" the US got the more likely it was to ultimately fail.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,523 #7 December 31, 2009 Quote It is pretty amazing that a strategy book over 2000 years old can contain so much "wisdom". Chess hasn't changed in (how many?) years. Human nature hasn't changed much in a very long time. The only real difference these days is the technology."There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy "~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #8 December 31, 2009 I feel the most important lesson in his writings and, unfortunately, the most ignored is that the ultimate goal is to win the battle with never having engaged the enemy.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #9 December 31, 2009 You've made it very difficult for me to add anything to your original post. I agree with everything you've written in it.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
