| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| China goes crazy for ideas of Sun Zi (Sun Tzu) |
| 2006-06-21 |
| There has all along been a debate whether there is the so-called "Sun Zi's Art of War Craze" at all. Some believe it is nothing but an insubstantial vision. Vision or reality? Solid figures speak louder. In the past few days, the Seventh International Symposium on Sun Zi's Art of War held in Hangzhou, China, attracted over 300 experts and scholars from 30 countries and regions to attend. In modern times, the economic integration facilitates unprecedented close connections among countries. Under the new historical conditions, the strategic thinking and the resourceful wisdom of the Sun Zi's Art of War epitomized in "breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting it" have been valued immensely by people, and furthermore, has been endowed with new meanings of the modern times and introduced into sectors with the ingrain nature of competitiveness and rivalry such as politics, diplomacy, business, sports and the like. Sun Zi's Art of War advocates wining "without fighting", resorting to military action with discretion and fighting to win, and underscores not engaging the enemy unless being assured of the necessary conditions for victory, complete victory and overwhelming the enemy, which contains the concept of valuing humanities and peace, and in fact is of great immediate guidance to settling disputes, realizing win-win situation for all and seeking for security through negotiation, consultation and cooperation. This mentality is in line with the common interests of the whole mankind and naturally attracts admiration worldwide just as the old Chinese saying goes: Peaches and plums do not have to talk, yet the world beats a path to them. In view of this, it is quite a reasonable choice for the world people to pay attention to, study, research on and apply the Sun Zi's Art of War rather than a hot-headed whim. One writer - Sun Zi is a great man, we should follow his works. |
| Posted by:gromky |
| #11 Moose: Of course, this philosophy has a widely different interpretation when embraced by civilians. Some years ago, it was all the rage on Wall Street, along with the more recently discovered writings of one of Sun Tzu's disciples, Sun Pin, along with such tripe as "The leadership skills of Ghengis Khan." In war, you can physically eliminate your adversary. In the business world (unless you consider La Cosa Nostra a business), you cannot. Logistics doesn't matter to law firms. The list goes on and on. Overall, I think Machavelli's The Prince is a better book for civilians. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-06-21 21:37 |
| #10 Besoeker: Lee chose honorable surrender as opposed to a guerrilla was, which many of his subordinate generals strongly encouraged. "Beaten into the ground" the Army of Northern Virginia was not. Under the rules of engagement of the day, Lee was beaten. Sherman burned Atlanta - and I suspect he was willing to do the same to any town that supported the rebels. Dehousing works - it puts the enemy's base of support in a situation where they can barely feed themselves, let alone feed the enemy. In fact, the idea is to avoid killing the enemy's base (as long as they don't offer armed resistance, otherwise, it's maneuver by fire), so that they have more mouths to feed, with ruins for housing, and burned farmlands for forage. Under the rules of the day, Lee was finished. And he knew it, which is why he surrendered, to avoid merely delaying the inevitable at a massive cost in Southern lives and livelihoods. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-06-21 21:26 |
| #9 Sorry Besoeker, that's just plain wrong. By the time Lee had run to Five Forks, his army had indeed been beaten into the ground. Herded back to Richmond and Petersburg, then surrounded and put into siege, with dwindling supplies, disease setting in, and exhaustion through the ranks, there was no way Lee could effect his extraction from Richmond and move south. In the strategic sense the ANV had been beaten as well. It could no longer perform its primary task: keep the Union out of Central Virginia, and keep the capital of the Confederacy safe from attack. The ANV was beaten. Lee's final act of genius and compassion was to recognize that. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-06-21 17:57 |
| #8 The best element of Sun Tzu is that he formalized two concepts: the military unit organization, and the method of planning operations. Every modern military on the planet uses both concepts. The method of planning consists of only six elements, but if you plan for those six, MOST of your typical planning is done: The overall situation The mission Execution of the mission Logistical support of the mission The command structure and communications Deception and obscuration of enemy intelligence Though there is considerable variation in emphasis with this method of planning, well-trained combat officers in modern armies are practiced in using this outline for planning for tasks from the mundane to the serious. Optimally, it will be second nature to them. As an outline, it expands or contracts depending on the size of the unit. Even the D-Day invasion, who operations plan was alleged to stand five feet tall, was just extrapolated from these six paragraphs. Of course, this philosophy has a widely different interpretation when embraced by civilians. Some years ago, it was all the rage on Wall Street, along with the more recently discovered writings of one of Sun Tzu's disciples, Sun Pin, along with such tripe as "The leadership skills of Ghengis Khan." |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-06-21 17:15 |
| #7 If Grant had followed these commentaries he'd have never beaten Lee into the ground Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, though badly attrited and low on food and supplies, had lost little of its adeptness and enthusiasm, and Lee himself, through all but incapacitated from exhaustion stomach flu, and lacking the aid of his most able subordinates (most of whom were now dead), had lost none of his knack for outwitting battlefield opponents. At no time did anyone ever think the South could achieve an overall military victory, but many believed that it could maintain the 1861 successions and eventually become an independent, sovereign nation, gradually wearing down the North's resolve to keep the entire Union together. President Lincoln was absolutely determined not to allow that to happen. He was wholly committed to preserving the Union and thus prosecuting the war to its conclusion. Lee chose honorable surrender as opposed to a guerrilla was, which many of his subordinate generals strongly encouraged. "Beaten into the ground" the Army of Northern Virginia was not. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-21 17:00 |
| #6 Damn! Preview is my friend, preview is my friend, preview is my friend... |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-06-21 16:45 |
| #5 Largely, Sun Tzu's commentary is a compendium of facts that any mediocre military strategist and tactician should already know. The fact that he wrote down these summaries is all the fame he really ought to get. Clausewitz's On War is a far broader and deeper treatise with some of the most profound viewpoints and commentaries ever put to print. While sometimes tedious and difficult, it beats Sun Tzu's commentaries in breadth and scope by miles. I've always found Sun Tzu's commentaries fairly infantile in their brevity. If Grant had followed these commentaries he'd have never beaten Lee into the ground and taken his surrender at Appomatox C.H. If Eiesenhower had taken Sun Tzu's comments literally and figuratively he'd have never ever>/em> dared to launch D-Day. No plan ever survives contact with the enemy. There are always unknowns. Sun Tzu's attempts to qualify all the maxims of warfare fail to point out this overall law first codified by Murphy. Sometimes - historically more often than not - it has been shown that when you're in a difficult spot and don;t know what the enemy is going to do it's often a good idea to attack him anyway - directly, ruthlessly, and with malice aforethought. Surprise, doing what the enemy doesn;t think you're able or willing to do, is often a winning strategy. While Sun Tzu does point this out, his other maxims tend to outweigh this one and get better press. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2006-06-21 16:44 |
| #4 #2: Americans also have a warrior philosopher, Curtis Lemay. Posted by: ed|| 2006-06-21 09:21 ||Comments Top|| "The Russians are not the enemy, the US Navy is the enemy." General Curtis Lemay My personal fav. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-06-21 14:04 |
| #3 LOL, ed! Coffee Alert! |
| Posted by: Ulusing Cleash5738 2006-06-21 09:44 |
| #2 Americans also have a warrior philosopher, Curtis Lemay. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-06-21 09:21 |
| #1 The English version of SunZi for Dummies here. |
| Posted by: Cravish Grolunter8216 2006-06-21 08:33 |