02.018 Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory...

[sonshi]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

[BingFa]

The goal of all conflict is to secure a more favorable peace or set of conditions.

Protracted fighting is not beneficial because it is counter to The Way and it results in more human suffering.

Protracted warfare makes both sides MORE vulnerable over both the short term and the long term.

-BingFa

[markb287]

"Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare."-Sun-tzu.

This basically goes back to what the beginning says that quick victories are better than long battles.

[Cardinal999]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Develop and execute intelligence team that gives one the advantage of foreknowledge.
Develop a strategy based on that foreknowledge which focus on the opposition's strategy.

And one will have a swift victory. Those who are involved in a protracted endeavor will face the negative consequences.

[gonzo]

Again, stressing the importance of achieving a quick victory. Anything protracted will be costly.

Gonzo

[MonteChristo]

Victory but not at all costs. Some battles should be avoided, as they bring no benefits. Do the battle only when you have to and have reasonable assurance that victory will be achieved quickly.

[SunZulu]

Sun Tzu said, "Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare."

War is a serious and expensive matter that ruins lives and drains countries of resources that could be used for better things. The faster they are finished, the better it is for everyone.

[nightwolf]

"Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare. "

another important principle: the goal of a war is victory, and this is the job of the strategist.

a protracted war could offer more chances for heroic actions, medals, great and bloody battles, epic resistance by civilians and troops..... but all these things are mostly consequences of a difficult and exhaustive campaign, not necessarily a succesful one.

[HALBLEU]

The Supreme Leader believes that a fast victory is possible if he or she practices the act and science of precision preparation from start to finish before the conflict begins. ...

He or she remembers speed is the essence of war.

A quick victory mean lower loss of human lives, lower operating costs and higher morale for team.

[insoumis]

I've read an article on Sun Tzu saying one of the remarcable things about him is the economy of lives.

Art of War seems to be obsessed by gaining victory at the lowes cost, specially lowest cost of lives.

This takes us to the question: What's victory?

To beat, crush the enemy :ham: or to get what you want (ex get him out of your country, get his oilwells...)?

I think this is true for all human endeavor. What do i consider succes, victory? Save's you a lot of loss in time, energy, nervous stress, etc.

To "flow" to your goal taking the path of least resistance, least effort. Flow with the Tao.:yy:

[Dan]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Don't fight for the sake of the fight. Fight to win.

Beat the enemy as rapidly and as soundly as possible. Make it known that you are superior, so that if any future disputes arise, they may be settled in your favor without further need for another war. Don't let the enemy think they had any chance of winning. As was posted earlier speed is important.

[dej2]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.
Sawyer’s Translation
“Thus the army values being victorious; it does not value prolonged warfare.”

Be thorough in planning and estimations, for your strategy must be certain of victory, for long drawn out campaigns will only drain the spirits of your men and the resources of your nation.

[pawn11]

I find that the chapter on calculations was placed in the right place in terms of sequencing and a logical flow of analysis. I seem to always arrive back at the same question?? The question being why am I fighting battles in the first place. It seemed for a time that I was addicted to the excitement of constant crisis and prolonged busyness mostly as it applies to working and making a living.

Really though this is more a question of earning enough units of currency with which to pay living expense, bills and the such. If I need to make X amount of dollars in which to live then why not go about it in an efficient way and enjoy the rest of my time once the objective or target amount of money is reached. Seems to make sense on paper????but in reality....hmmm

To reflect on the current passage it would seem that for me today this would mean working an an efficient and reasonable way that allows me to A)earn a living B)enjoy earning a living. Why not get used to experiencing some measurable reasonable successes on a daily basis. Try getting used to success for a change. A friend of mine who is a successful athlete uses a simalar strategy with which to achieve notable success in sports. I would think it to be a transferable strategy.

Sincerely,

pawn11

[waterbearer]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

The honor is not in the length of the battle but its timely outcome. Win, maintaining where possible the respect of the adversary, but win.

[Truthseeker]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

The last few passages have dealt with killing the enemy. I think ST may be saying that killing has the potential to prolong what would otherwise be a
quick, decisive victory.

[maxx]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Im sure all of us here have experienced some form of conflict in our lives, espicially if we turn to something as obscure as the Art of War.

And from these experiences, we have learned new lessons.

The most important one is summed up here-
Any long conflict results in loss of every kind, whether men, weapons and moral.

[Bushranger]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

A sense of perspective ...

When engaged in battle it is important to keep one's ultimate objective in mind. Unnecessarily enraging the enemy could merely prolong the war with all its attendant uncertainties and evils. Thus, the general will aim towards victory, not further war. He will choose his battles with this in mind and control the conduct of his troops.

[Trinity]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Sometimes we need to analyze the long term effects of warfare and what true victory really is. We did not unify North and South Korea as a result this theater of operation is still a drain on America resources after fifty plus years. Perhaps we need to go for total victory such as when we first had the chance in Iraq during Desert Storm. Those that we have totally conquered tend to ally themselves with us. If we leave a conflict unresolved, it is like a festering sore.

[Kansuke]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

The idea of victory is lopsided at best, considering that a true general wins before he marches. Drawn out campaigns only hurt the army, and the nation, make her weak, make her vulnerable. One must avoid this at all costs; it's never a sound idea to become weak and vulnerable.

[FlamingCorndogs]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Don't fight. Win. Define "win" however you need to in order to avoid the protracted struggle that will ruin the homeland.

[Saro]

Always keep in mind that war is a means to an end, never an end in itself. So, if an opportunity arises to bring the conflict to a successful conclusion now rather than later, take it. Conducting war depletes your resources, so the longer it runs, the worse off you, your opponent, and possibly your objective, will be.

[lozen]

"Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare." _Sun Tzu.

I am confused as to how this would apply in a modern situation. What if you are attacked first and the only way TO win is through protracted warfare. What then?

Even with effective strategies, it is not always possible to have a quick victory. Are ALL protracted battles badly handled ones?

[Uzume]

This and the next verse cap the entire chapter, reiterating Sun Tzu's point that victory is the point of warfare as a political instrument, not war in itself. By implication, swift victory is infinitely to be preferred over protracted conflict.

[Realist]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.
Let me think of a few words that are verisimilarly applied to protracted warfare... cowardly; cautious; indecisive; obsolete; long; slow... they can all be taken negatively - though positive in some respects. When you have the chance for victory, take it. End conflict as soon as possible lest you prolong the people's suffering - and worse is when your cautiousness proves futile' you prolong the people's suffering even more. The wise general seeks victory as soon as possible; to end the suffering of the people... because the Sun Tzu General does what is to the complacency and well-being of his people. In this light, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

[Vesting]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Only fight to win. Victory for everyone is your aim. If you'll have to wage a war out of necessity, make very sure it will be a short one. If it takes too long to resolve, you shouldn't had begin with it in the first place, so get out of there soon. Don't give them more reasons to hate you. Therefore, to prevent retaliation, take respectfully care of the captured enemy's forces.

[Hazard]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

This one is a mouthful. It goes back to his emphasis on preparation be prepared to know what are the factors of victory before you dedicate resources towards the battle. If the factors of victory cannot be achieved avoid war until the time when they can. If you can't achieve victory you shouldn't conduct battle. In conducting battles you can't win you lose troops and supplies weakening your chances of reaching a quick resolution.

[Hephaestus]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

This reminds you that the important thing is to win, not fight; you can win a battle without fighting, without war.

[Bubishi]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

Quick and fast is more powerfull than slow and calculated.

Remember that winning means to avoid protracted warfare.

[Duncan]

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare. Set a specific goal. Get it done. And go home. A long war can cause damage to your own nation that outweighs the benefit of victory. Compare Gulf War I to Gulf War II for a good example of this.

[wu ming yue]

America's failure to grasp this concept ultimately led to the disgraceful and embarrassing expenditure on the war on terrorism. They did not do a thorough clean and elimination of potential threats in the early stages of the war, which in turn has led to a protracted and expensive war for the Americans.

[pawn12]

Would a protracted war be an indicator of an ill conceived strategy?

pawn12

[Cardinal999]

Originally posted by pawn12
Would a protracted war be an indicator of an ill conceived strategy?

pawn12

Following is a brief list of factors that I use to grade the tangibility of pre-launched strategy:

* the quality of strategic assessment;
* the quality of competitive positioning;
* the quality of implementation; and
* the quality of adjustment.

What list of factors do you use?

[no_name]

Originally posted by pawn12
Would a protracted war be an indicator of an ill conceived strategy?

pawn12

It could be bad strategy
It could also be good strategy on incorrect intelligence.
It could be good strategy but bad effort in implementing it.
Or miscalculations of effort needed to sustain said strategy.
Or not being aware that conditions have changed.

regards,

[Duncan]

Originally posted by pawn12
Would a protracted war be an indicator of an ill conceived strategy?

pawn12 Depends on the viewpoint. For Vietnam it was a very bad strategy for the USA. However, it was a very good strategy for North Vietnam.

[pawn12]

These are all very good and thoughtful points of reply.

My concern at this point is that while we are involved in Afganistan, is the United States getting distracted. By this I mean If one tracks The US debt and current budget deficits. Is Afganistan a part of a larger "magnet" strategy.

It is a prolonged campaing that is using up financial resources. At this critical time, I wonder if other nation states are using this as an oportunity to deleverage the US financial position and thus eventualy hobble a military force that they can't defeat in a conventional scenario.

Thus winning without fighting.

or

To use this mounting debt inbalance as a lever to gain a larger piece of the global economic pie.

Thanks,

pawn12

[Yin]

Therefore, the important thing in doing battle is victory, not protracted warfare.

just like water, seeking holes that will ensure victory

And seeks it fast before the water evaporates.

Time is always a factor.

One should do things with great haste.