03.002 Therefore, to gain a hundred victories...

[Duncan]

Originally posted by sonshi
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.

Efficiency is paramount. Win without expending your own people and resources.

I notice that he says "subjugate." I wonder if Sun Tzu is falling into the thinking (as Von Clauswitz does) that warfare is a zero sum game. One side must win and one side must lose. Sun Tzu is sounding like an empire builder, which I suppose he was. But what about creating a situation where both sides win?

[no_name]

I guess he is talking about when a win-win situation is no longer possible as he use the word enemy (or it is translated) rather than say competitor.

regards,

[badpanda]

"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. "



This was made clear in Vietnam.

Despite the US winning nearly every battle in Vietnam the US still managed to lost the war.

[badpanda]

Originally Posted by Nyran Kheiron

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.

.

This is particular true today.. winning battles dosent mean winning the war

In Iraq the US may be gaining hundreds of "victories" yet they are not winning the war.

To win a war you need to change the enemies will to fight.

that is why in Vietnam the US lost.. because they lost public support for the war..

[educatorart]

Originally Posted by badpanda

This is particular true today.. winning battles dosent mean winning the war

In Iraq the US may be gaining hundreds of "victories" yet they are not winning the war.

To win a war you need to change the enemies will to fight.

that is why in Vietnam the US lost.. because they lost public support for the war..

Welcome to the forum badpanda!

You're right, when I was around the same age as my child is today, I was conscripted into the South African military against my will, and experienced the brutality of war first-hand during the South African border war. Notwithstanding all its military strength, and all its battlefield victories, the apartheid regime ultimately lost the war. An important Sun Tsuzian lesson was learned the hard way. Despite all its military power and the bravery of its soldiers, the apartheid regime did not ultimately win the war, because, although it won hands down in every battlefield encounter, its real weakness was revealed by the international community's rejection of apartheid through international sanctions, which severely undermined the apartheid economy, so much so that the once almighty apartheid regime entered negotiations with the ANC towards a power-sharing solution, which paved the way to the first democratic elections in my nation's history. This was something considered impossible, no matter on which side one was on, a year or two before it actually happened.

Sun Tzu said that battles should ideally be won off the battlefield, and that it is more important to out-think than to out-fight the adversary. Thus 2 500 years on, the validity of his words hold true.

[The Sheepdog]

Originally Posted by Duncan

Efficiency is paramount. Win without expending your own people and resources.

I notice that he says "subjugate." I wonder if Sun Tzu is falling into the thinking (as Von Clauswitz does) that warfare is a zero sum game. One side must win and one side must lose. Sun Tzu is sounding like an empire builder, which I suppose he was. But what about creating a situation where both sides win?

I completely understand your point of questioning here Duncan. I would agree with you in the use of the term subjugate but I am going to try and minimize its use within a warfare environment. I believe that should two nations go to war, I believe Sun Tzu would have preferred -- like he said -- to take the enemy whole. Now, I look at the Civil War and think about the times immediately following the defeat of the South. Regardless of the declared victory by the North, there were Southernors -- and many of them -- that absolutely refused to give their allegience to the United States, or as they saw it -- The North. At that point, many of them were, in my opinion, subjugated to the powers of the U.S. I suspect in Sun Tzu's time, there were those that eagerly surrendered to their opponents willingly and those that were captured who never surrendered and were eventually released or else subjugated to the victor's authority. In the end, Sun Tzu would have preferred to avoid the entire conflict before it ever started but for whatever reason(s) at the time, conflict was unable to be avoided and he felt there was those that must have been subjugated as a result of the victor's victory. Just my thoughts.

[educatorart]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

...Sun Tzu would have preferred to avoid the entire conflict before it ever started but for whatever reason(s) at the time, conflict was unable to be avoided and he felt there was those that must have been subjugated as a result of the victor's victory.

I also think Sun Tzu would have thought that way. Great posts Sheepdog and Duncan!

Perhaps it also may have something to do with the differences between Western and Eastern perspectives on conflict. The traditional Western perspective of conflict seems to be based on the direct and rigid ideal of dominating the center and knocking the enemy off the board as in chess. Whereas the traditional Eastern perspective seems to be based more on the indirect and fluid ideal of moving to the sides in order to surround the enemy and take it whole, as in Wei Ji. So I think the word subjugate would hold different strategic meanings depending on whether one is more inclined to think about conflict in a tradition Western way or in a traditional Eastern way.

Imagine if Sun Tzu and Von Clauswitz sat an exam where the question was: "Define in your own words the meaning of subjugate". I'm sure their answers would be quite different, and along the lines of differing Western and Eastern perspectives on conflict, with Sun Tzu using the word "surround" more and Von Clauswitz using the word "defeat" more.

This is interesting, because in a year-long study that I have just finished on applying The 36 Stratagems to education, it became evident that the traditional Western perspectives of "stratagem" have connotations with deception and trickery, whereas the traditional Eastern perspectives of "stratagem" have connotations with cunningness, ingenuity, creativity and even wisdom.

I don't think one is superior to the other (as both Western and Eastern thought hold great validity), but I do think that the tactical advantage lies in judiciously combining elements of each in dealing with the unfolding of unexpected circumstances.

[The Sheepdog]

Originally Posted by educatorart

...I don't think one is superior to the other (as both Western and Eastern thought hold great validity), but I do think that the tactical advantage lies in judiciously combining elements of each in dealing with the unfolding of unexpected circumstances.

Once again, perfectly said. I believe this best describes a "well-rounded" Warrior and one who would do well in the arts of war and conflict resolution. I believe we often forget that The Art of War was written in an eastern thought mentality and we have to apply it in a western one. I think at times we forget to translate it one from the other in its application. To me, therein lies the problem that often arises when we read Sun Tzu and try to apply his principles without translating them from eastern thought to western. That is not necessary for all of his principles; however, there are those - as in the former posts - whereby it is necessary, as you so wisely pointed out. Educatorart, your thoughts in this area are always enlightening. Thanks for sharing.

[educatorart]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

Educatorart, your thoughts in this area are always enlightening. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks Sheepdog! Yet I truly believe that, in essence, the real source of enlightenment is in your contributions, together with all the members on this great Sonshi.com forum, to the outstanding insights upon which I have merely taken the liberty to elaborate a little. You, and the other forum members, plant the actual seeds, and I merely water them a little. Thanks for the bumper strategic harvest that we behold here! We make a great team! Bravo!

[Arune]

Originally Posted by The Sheepdog

Once again, perfectly said. I believe we often forget that The Art of War was written in an eastern thought mentality and we have to apply it in a western one. I think at times we forget to translate it one from the other in its application. To me, therein lies the problem that often arises when we read Sun Tzu and try to apply his principles without translating them from eastern thought to western.

What is Eastern thought?

What is Western thought?

[The Sheepdog]

There is a much more in-depth explanation or description that could be provided by many readers of this forum, but to put it simply and in one word -- to me -- the difference between the two is PATIENCE!

[educatorart]

Sheepdog is absolutely right!

[Yin]

Originally Posted by sonshi

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.

win them over dont destroy them

Its like destroying plants that will bring you fruits when cultivated