02.015 Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off...

[sonshi]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

[BingFa]

No, I really am hungry. ;)

I think I have already said as much as I can on this particular topic.

I shall defer to the insights of others.

BingFa

[markb287]

"Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own. "-Sun-tzu.

The wise general will not fight the enemy through means of fighting. If the enemy is stronger then he must try to lure him out of fighting us.

[Culturejamming]

This is not what is meant at all. Sun Tzu means that any captured resource is pure sundry and also makes the enemy weaker for having had it plundered from them. The bushel earned negates having to pay a farmer to raise a bushel, then a merchant to handle it. Also to pay for the merchant's horse's share of the grain and the depreciatin to the merchant's waggon. Once it was delivered to the general the bushel must then be carried by someone with another horse and another waggon. It is much better for an army to travel light and take what is needed. The soldiers of Sparta subscribed to similar ideals and were quite sucessfull.

[Cardinal999]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

As my [consultant] associate tells me, "To survive as a consultant, one must know how to live off the client or the opposition."

Living off the opposition resources is part of the "No Effort Combat" principle.

[gonzo]

Your opponents' resources have more of a important benefit for you than just the tangible uses. It deprives the ememy as well as keeping your resources from becoming exhausted.

Gonzo

[MonteChristo]

That is why you should use enemy’s resources when possible. When you have no resources you are not able to fight.

[SunZulu]

Sun Tzu said, "Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own."

The general has two purposes. The first is to achieve his military objectives. The second is to protect the resources of his country by conserving his own resources and by utilizing the oppositions resources for his own needs.

[nightwolf]

"Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own. "

Exploiting enemy provisions is a double advantage: is a damage for the enemy and a gain for our army (and without any expenses of transport and production)

[Dan]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy.

If you feed off the enemy, you don't use your own resources so your treasury and graineries aren't depleted, taxes aren't raised, and economic ruin doesn't occur (except maybe to your enemy, but that's a good thing).

One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

This is an exageration but it makes sense.

Let's do some math (Yay! :rolleyes: ). You take one bushel, that's one less your enemy has, so that's a 2 bushel advantage over your enemy.

Now your enemy has to replace that one bushel, which will cost say 3 bushels (It would of course depend on the circumstances but this will give us the basic idea of what I'm trying to explain) because of collection and transportation to the front lines or because of the exaggerated prices described earlier. So that's a 5 bushel advantage over your enemy.

Now you avoid those same costs. So now that's a 8 bushel advantage over your enemy.

Then we factor in that saving that bushel will require less taxes, so less dissent is caused, that's worth 3 bushels. So You have an 11 bushel advantage.

As well your enemy has to raise taxes to cove that bushel (and the other 3 for transportation) this raises dissent which is definately worth 3 bushels towards you. So you now have a 14 bushel adavantage for stealing one bushel. Multiply that on a massive scale and you get a major advantage over your enemy.

So in otherwords. Take whatever you can use from your enemy.

[dej2]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.
Sawyer’s Translation
"Thus wise generals will concentrate on securing provisions from the enemy. One bushel of the enemy’s foodstuffs is worth twenty of ours; one picul of fodderis worth twenty of ours."

Sun Tzu reiterates the importance for our armies to acquire supplies from the enemy rather than using our own resources. Sun Tzu stresses that point by stating "one bushel of the enemy’s foodstuffs is worth twenty of ours". By taking the enemy’s supplies we deprive them from using it themselves, we save on the cost and labor of transporting the supplies from our nation to our encampments, and we don’t use our nations resources to create those supplies, i.e. grow, fertilize, raise, feed, process or manufacture them. Thus for every item we acquire from the enemy equals twenty of our own.

[pawn11]

I can remember working on a small farm and eating about as many strawberries as I could stomach. Now I realize that there are laws of diminishing returns.. too many strawberries can upset ones digestion and so on.

I did though save some money on lunches and benefitted from a high fruit diet (in terms of my health). It was also ok with the boss to forage..so it didn't seem to affect his bottom line.

If I do view earning a living as a type of battle field then taking advantage of natural benefits of the enviroment would seem to indicative of AOW strategy. (But) is it healthy or fair to view your employer as an enemy that requires strategic interventions. I have found that in some work situations it does very much feel like a forced battle where survival is at stake. I personally find this type of thinking to be somewhat depressing and not a very hopeful reflection of the times.

Which brings me back to my question of why am I fighting battles in which I will surly lose. Sometimes these battles require loss of faith and self respect. For those who have been "forced" into work enviroment which they dislike or hate. I have personally found that working for below living wage to be a futile and frustrating event. In lieu of insight or better strategy these types of battles in my own lif continue unabatted (as I reflect from the expenses of protracted warfare.) These battles have been very costly. Why am I fighting battles which I do not win...it seems that necessity is the force thhat motivates me to go to work.

sincerely,
Pawn11

[waterbearer]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

The capacity to save the resources of a nation's citizens is tantamount to many times that secured from an adversary. There is a synergy at work in terms of the benevolence with which the citizens honor their leaders for their perceived frugality.

[Truthseeker]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Another viewpoint could be to learn from our competitors. Observe their actions and contemplate the benefit or destruction resulting from their descision making. Apply those lessons to our own strategy, reducing our own level of costly mistakes.

[pol0311]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Live of the land and feed off of the spoils of war you take from the enemy in battle. Lessen the burden on yourself as you increase the burden of your enemy in this way.

[maxx]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is
worth twenty of our own.

This subject is starting to become rather tedious. Its almost like Sun Tzu enjoys repeating himself. However, I must respond.
If you want to move something away from home, you have to bring the food from home. That takes up some of your precious energy. Therefore, it is smart to take what food is at the place.

Allow me to illustrate:

Supposing that I didn't have the money to afford to buy something from McDonalds and I just had to eat on the road.
To begin with, I would have to drive to the supermarket, buy the supplies (probably with coupons), and re-drive home.
Then I would have to pack up the food, and then go on to my destination.
Then, I would have to spend the energy and shame on the fact that I couldn't just go to McDonalds.
All of this energy and time wasted is equivilent to 20x's the load of just going to McDonalds.

I hope I've proven my point.

[Bushranger]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Supply Lines ...

Therefore, it is not sufficient to merely regard as "good" the phenomena of living off the enemy's provisions and fodder. In the Art of War, this phenomena becomes a desireable end in itself, something to "strive" for.

For all the reasons referred to in the passages before this, the wise general recognises the value of replacing (increasingly long) resupply routes from home with the spoils of war. And, recognising the supreme utility of this, make of it an object in itself when considering potential advantage in the formulation of plans.

[hitasu]

well put - Peter Senge i think that is exactly what tzu meant when he said that. seeing as how he stresses the preservation of resources it makes sense that this quote would be in support of that position. the vietnamese had great success with this tactic of using what the enemy had agaisnt them. most of the weapons used in the vietnam war were either from enemies they killed or made up from materials left by the enemy. Now i know we "won" the war but the tremendous success the vietnamese had in prolonging that "victory"

[Trinity]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

This not only frees up resources but deprives the foe access to their own.

[Kansuke]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Everything one can seize from the enemy in the form of perishables is worth anything shipped by a ridiculously high multiplier. All things one takes in the field are free - everything sent from home is entirely too expensive, especially foodstuffs the army purchases from a merchant who undoubtedly ballooned his prices to make a fat profit off the garrisoned force.

Impoverish the enemy, not you.

[FlamingCorndogs]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Twenty may be an arbitrary number. The simple point is an economic reflection of Patton's famous maxim about making the other poor dumb son of a bitch die for his country. To substitute, as much as possible, the ruination of the other army's homeland for the ruination of one's own people as described in the prior passage.

[Godless]

I would personally think that this is due to a combination of things.

1- Its one less for your army to transport up which saves on man power
2- It does the exact opposite to your enemy.
3- Anything weakening them and gaining to you is priceless

[SubRosa]

Once again, here I am - the ignorant disciple.

If we look at "feed off of" as meaning "to exploit," could a parallel could be drawn to practices such as
a) using Third World countries as sources of cheap, non-unionized labor?
b) using poor/minority neighborhoods as a dumping group for toxic waste?
c) using "client regimes" and their armies to defend U.S. strategic interests - even if those regimes are oppressive?

One could argue that the "other" parties (with the possible exception of c) are not declared combatants, and so the practice would not be justified. But in the global economy, isn't everyone potentially a competitor against everyone else?

[Saro]

This is the logical course that extends from everything that's been said so far. The reason prolonged war is so devastating is because of the toll it takes on the nation's resources. By feeding off of the enemy's resources you're powering the engine of his defeat with his own fuel. Not only are you preserving your own resources, you are also increasing the pace at which his are being depleted. Following this practice, not only will the fighting will be over faster but you'll be stronger when it does.

[lozen]

I wonder about the wisdom of this. Because I always t hought that in war it would be best to target soldiers and not civilians. And taking away resources from the enemy would ultimately impact the civilians. Also I think it obscures the reason for the war. If we are taking OIL for example from other countries then how do common citizens know that is not our intent? And as far as taking food, if he did indeed mean this literally, I am not sure that is the best strategy either--would have to be damn sure I could get to my food, that it was edible, that it isn't contaminated, etc. I spent a few weeks in Central America and knew better than to eat the meat, for example...

[ebonychill]

There's one accent that I would like to mention:

One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

War then is something to be conducted out of the ABUNDANCE/EXCESS of your wealth. If you look at "the enemy" as the "gained", or "to be gained", and your own as "your capital", then through careful "calculations in your temple" you will determine whether effort to be expended will in fact "gain" you the enemies bushel. Or will you have a loss? Is your leverage enough to outweigh factors which use your resources. Because face reality- War is an EXPENSE.

As to feeding off the enemies bushel- yes, indeed it is a double hit to them. They will lose sustenance, while you do not have to deplete yours. But for that to happen, you must in fact first "gain" it.

But is this sort of parasitic "feeding off the enemy" truly a good condition of affairs? What does Sun Tzu say?

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

So then this sort of practice in theory (in my mind) is truly what must be employed in a strategy of swift defeat. And as a permanent condition such as was above described in employee/employer, rich/poor relationship (situations mentioned above by SubRosa and Pawn11) it is not a condition that is natural. In my mind, all things of deep Chinese philosophical nature which appeal to victory and enlightenment search for the most natural course of action. In other words, not protracted or burdened.

If this is the case, your job after "defeating" the enemy then, would be to erase that definition of him. He is after "defeat" no longer "the enemy". He must be redefined. In what way, will of course depend very much on what type of battle has been waged and who the respecting "sides" are.

One other thought that I have that I forgot to include:

SunTzu writes a few lines later-

taking the enemy's wealth is a matter of reward.

Taking the wealth of the enemy is truly that- a reward. So the perhaps the best premise for this reward also be that ABUNDANCE and EXCESS in possesion of the enemy.

I have a very very dear friend of mine.... who lives in "virtual" poverty. He has no money, very small income, no home, no belongings, no clothing but what is on his back, what he carries, and what others share with him. However, I might add that this friend of mine is quite literally the richest man I know. Why do I say this? He is truly free from all chains you might wish to bind him with, be it emotional, financial, social, educational. His spirit is so strong as to break all these chains. He sleeps in sub-zero temperatures on the street, he travels large distances on foot, or petitioning for passage on transportation, he eats bread four times a week, and drinks only water. His clothes are dirty and torn with large holes... but I have never seen a man with such joy and love for life. But mostly, love for others, other people. His kindness then is his WEALTH. It is a dichotomy. But first let me share with you my first impressions of him. I thought he was a cheater, a liar, a stealer. He offers up people for help, or "invites" them to share in his world, and then many times those very people feel "cheated", that he "took" something from them- usually it is material or something of that nature. Only in retrospect can they appreciate that the "material" things that were used or lost in the exchange were simply a way for him to be able to barter a kindness towards them. For the large hearts and deep souls out there, his gifts are intangible, untouchable.... and priceless. And if you are wise, you will feel that your loss because of him actually in all truth BENEFITED YOU most of all.

Where does this lead? If an enemy has a "wealth" (Which is exactly how SunTzu describes it), the act of then wresting that wealth from him can take on greater meaning. (Though honestly, I don't think this deep principle has been used in warfare!) Look further then into what SunTzu writes then. Very interesting:

Therefore, a general who understands warfare is the guardian of people's lives, and the ruler of the nation's security.

And then:

Therefore, to gain a hundred victories in a hundred battles is not the highest excellence;
to subjugate the enemy's army without doing battle is the highest of excellence.

Is this a clue to something deeper? Could then war (deception) be a weapon of love? When I first met my friend I felt like I had been used, or deceived. My first reaction was EXACTLY that. A reaction. A conditioned response. A thing of learning- that when someone deceives you, it means they have or had maligned intentions towards you. But after long thinking I came to enlightenment. I HADN'T BEEN RESPONDING TO HIM, I HAD BEEN REACTING TO HIM. Big difference! I had missed the deeper human connection! And not only that! Through this simple deception and loss of EXCESS or ABUNDANCE that was in my possession, I was then able to step out of my own contrued- and largely puppeteered- paradigm of life!

So then denying the enemy of an EXCESS can then be construed as an act of love!

I have really in fact gone off onto a REAL tangent. However, in many ways, I feel it to be VERY relevant!

Peace to you all.

[Uzume]

Securing resources from your enemy in the field is like receiving manna from heaven while depriving the competition of their use. An economic multiplier is thus likely to take effect, for not only do you save on the cost of the item and its transport, you impose similar replacement costs on the opposing side.

One caveat seems in order, however. Be careful not to squander your own resources in efforts to secure the enemy's. Pick your targets with due diligence, and forage reasonably.

[Realist]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.
This is a matter of "defeating the enemy and increasing our strength." If you need more resources, never waste your own. Take from the enemy - thus weakening the enemy's forces - to increase your own strength. Preserve your own resources; gathering more from your own army is just feeding from yourself; taking from the enemy is worth so much more... because of this, one bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

[Vesting]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

If the invading army is much too eager to obtain the needed goods and provisions from the land, then this mentally or logistic weakness can be attacked by the defenders. So be aware. A wise general at the side of the defensive forces surely knows must know how to defend effectively against this method of exploitation of his own treasures.

Notes
--------

Two dictionary definitions of the non-metric quantities as mentioned in this particular section. It's unclear to me if the Denma translators have taken the effort to choose Anglo-Saxon quantities approximately similar to those as used by the ancient Chinese. The mentioned 'picul' weight unit, however, seems to be of Far-Eastern origin.


Bushel Bush"el (b[.u]sh"[e^]l), n. [OE. buschel, boischel, OF.
boissel, bussel, boistel, F. boisseau, LL. bustellus; dim. of
bustia, buxida (OF. boiste), fr. pyxida, acc. of L. pyxis
box, Gr. pyxi`s. Cf. Box.]
1. A dry measure, containing four pecks, eight gallons, or
thirty-two quarts.

Note: The Winchester bushel, formerly used in England,
contained 2150.42 cubic inches, being the volume of a
cylinder 181/2 inches in internal diameter and eight
inches in depth. The standard bushel measures, prepared
by the United States Government and distributed to the
States, hold each 77.6274 pounds of distilled water, at
39.8[deg] Fahr. and 30 inches atmospheric pressure,
being the equivalent of the Winchester bushel. The
imperial bushel now in use in England is larger than
the Winchester bushel, containing 2218.2 cubic inches,
or 80 pounds of water at 62[deg] Fahr.
[1913 Webster]

Picul Pic"ul, n. [Jav. & Malay pikul, fr. pikul to carry on
the back, to carry a burden; n., a man's burden.]
A commercial weight varying in different countries and for
different commodities. In Borneo it is 1355/8 lbs.; in China
and Sumatra, 1331/2 lbs.; in Japan, 1331/3 lbs.; but
sometimes 130 lbs., etc. Called also, by the Chinese, tan.
[Written also pecul, and pecal.]
[1913 Webster]

Fodder Fod"der (f[o^]d"d[~e]r), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Foddered
(f[o^]d"d[~e]rd); p. pr. & vb. n. Foddering.]
To feed, as cattle, with dry food or cut grass, etc.; to
furnish with hay, straw, oats, etc.
[1913 Webster]

[Hazard]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Always strive to both hurt your enemy and help yourself whenever possible. By doing this you are strengthening yourself and weakening your opponent which will allow you to arrange a confrontation more beneficial to you.

[Hephaestus]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

As I previously stated, this is not only because of your enemy's loss being your gain, but because food spoils when it must be transported long distances. It is economically irresponsible to provide your own food and supplies during war.

[Bubishi]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

Strengthen your advantage by taking your enemies resources.
This will also help you get supplies and protect your nation from losing its resources.

[Duncan]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own. Foraging will do two things. It will not hurt the general's own nation because it saves not only the resource but the logisitics necessary to transport it. It will hurt the enemy because they now lack that resource. During WWII the Russians embarked on a scorched earth program as they retreated rather than allow the German army to benefit from captured resources.

[Yin]

Therefore, a wise general will strive to feed off the enemy. One bushel of the enemy's provisions is worth twenty of our own, one picul of fodder is worth twenty of our own.

a great smile is the vampire's weapon (or a user)

It can give you a wife (you don't have to bring any with you)
It can give you a husband (you don't have to bring any with you)
It can give you a job (very effective on this one)
It can give you sales (to call attention "I'm sexy and I know it") that's why they use models
It can give you the deal ("smiles" trust me)
You can cross the street and the cars will stop (I always do this)
It can even give you money (you're so beautiful today...)
It can give you friends (do I know you? "Smiles")
It can win you favors (women can't resist the pearly whites)
It can give you a seat (can I seat there please? "Smiles)
It can give you help (and influence)
It can give you food (I'm hungry "wink wink")
It can give you free tickets (I wanna come with you.. "Lusty smile")
It can give you blood (I'm happy to die as long as your "here" with me "smiles" "wink wink")
It can give you powerful positions (so you can power trip!)

Many more...

The quality of the smile intensifies the effect.. (If you've got ugly teeth don't smile they might mistake you for the joker who would shoot them while they're watching a movie) (the art of war is a path of healthy living)

What a great general.. He doesn't need to strive just smile and communicate effectively and skillfully..

(Sun tzu stresses the importance of this verse because of the word "strives")

It's worth twenty more because you don't have anything in the first place

Very important indeed