02.004 If troops lay siege to a walled city...

[sonshi]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

[markb287]

"If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."-Sun-tzu.

As it may be easier now to siege a walled city, it was very difficult during the time of Sun-tzu, although the principle still stands.

If one interprets this excerpt to refer exclusively to Urban Warfare then there is no doubt in my mind that Sun Tzu's dictum is apropos in the 21st century.

I shake my head in disbelief when I read news accounts of the USA's so-called Inside-Out Strategy for storming Baghdad. I personally think that those stories are floated and are simply PSYOPS to keep Saddam guessing.

We know Saddam is not going to mass his troops in the desert and that he has chosen to hunker down in the cities in the hope of drawing the USA into an urban battle. Thus, I conclude that in the even that the USA does go to war with Iraq, we will largely bypass the cities and instead establish perimeters around same and wait them out. Slowly and purposefully closing the noose as time goes by.

-BingFa

[willatlasshrug]

Again, from a business perspective...

If you choose to focus on business markets that won't quickly accept your product, or companies that show little serious interest in what you are selling, you will exhaust valuable time, energy, money, etc. going after the wrong market.

[willatlasshrug]

Sometimes this can be just common sense.

Let's say you are about to go to lunch with a co-worker and you want pizza, but your co-worker doesn't like pizza. It's possible you could argue for 1/2 hour and convince them to go for pizza, but 2 things would happen 1) You've lost half your lunch our, and 2) You may have damaged a relationship you need or enjoy.

It would probably be better to just look for an alternative to pizza.

Originally posted by sonshi
If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

The Wise Strategist believes that direct confrontation creates prolonged scenarios.

Prolonged scenarios creates insufficent amt. of resources.

It is all about [Cause & Effect].

[gonzo]

I believe that this message conveys that if a major obsticle is in the way, before you can attack your objective you need to make sure that there is nothing in the way.

Gonzo

[MonteChristo]

People need action. They need to be engaged in something to avoid boredom. If they are not then their motivation drops. Also they can not take advantage of the terrain. So in fact they are exposed and not protected. There is an example of nowadays war that is run against the Sun Tzu rules. This is Russian presence in Chechna. Although they do not lay siege to walled cities, they attack people in mountains, who can take advantage of terrain. Even worse, they are changing the position. This extends the campaign increasing costs and decreasing military potential of the attacking army.

[HALBLEU]

In ancent times, the Supreme Strategist General (SSG) forbid the direct attack to a walled city only as a diversion. ... Cao Cao was the master of waiting out the opponent. Very rarely did he went to a direct attack. He knew most houses crumble from within.

Sun Tzu said, "If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted."

A walled city is the place that consist of the most resistance. Laying siege to a walled city is the least efficient and the most dangerous way to achieve an objective.

"If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

A siege is a long, exhausting and difficult operation. It needs a lot of troops and resources, a wise general must avoid it if there are alternatives.

[Dan]

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

A siege lowers morale as they troops are doing nothing and, apparently are accomplishing nothing. This will lead to discontent, and a loss of morale. Better to win before the enemy get to their walls and defenses.

Attacking an enemy stronghold goes against the stuff we learned in Ch.1. Attack where the enemy is weak, not at their fortified postions. This will give you the advantage. While attaacking the enemies' fortified area gives them an advantage.

[dej2]

"If you attack cities, their strength will be exhausted"

Sun Tzu of course speaking of the strength of his own troops. Cities in general will have at least a garrison of troops protecting as well as thousands of conscripts if necessary, they will have enough supplies to last months, access to warehouses full of weapons. Cities may have a defensive perimeter armed with spike pits, moats, trenches, fortified walls and towers. The soldiers fighting will have an added incentive to protect their homes, families and loved ones.

What would the purpose be to lay siege to this city? What will this accomplish when it’s over? If the residents of the city are eventually to become subjugated, how productive will they be when you’ve destroyed their homes, killed their friends, family and loved ones. If the purpose is to pillage, how much energy and resources will be wasted while the siege drags on for months, how much will be gained when it’s all over? Total destruction of the city using fire, especially during the hot summer months, would be quicker, but again what would that accomplish, the people left alive would surely hate and despise you, and nothing would be left to plunder.

Remember Sun Tzu lived during the Spring and Autumn Period in China’s History. During this time battles were seen as a duel between gentlemen, just on a bigger scale. Only barbarians laid siege on innocent people. So laying siege on a city would put you in the same class as the Xiong-nu (the Huns).

[Equilibrium]

So then, when is it profitable to take the city?

A classical case of circumvention would be the Germans going around the Marginot Line and then later attacking it after taking most of France, but later in WWII the Germans thought it best to take cities (while not walled, but garrisoned) as they made their offensive in the Battle of the Bulge.

In today's modern warfare, does this really apply though? In our "Policing" activity, the city IS the objective. In this war, we saw the US make a straight line of Baghdad, pushing hard and mopping up (the British) as they went along.

hmm....
Linear, logical (ha Ha) warfare would be predictable in relation to the principal of cause and effect ie: If my town is attacked in turn your city will be destroyed. I would surmise that surperior strategy would avoid unwinnable battles and focus on winning battles and wars that lead to total victory...Quite an order.

If it is true that most house crumble first from within then I would set about arranging favorable conditions in which this could naturally occure. I would also supplement this by removing an enemy means of defense before the battle occures. When the time would be right to call up strategic assests the enemy would be dismayed and humbled in their absence. I would also set forth clear rewards that in turn would be self motivating for said assets to do this mostly of their own self interest.

Unfortunately it seems that walled cities do have to be attacked at times. I understand the logic of the Sun Tzu.
It mostly speaks to my own immaturity as a strategist. In absence of a plan I tend to attack walled cities (objectives) and yes my results have been quite poor. I guess I'll just have to keep on studying and evaluating this fine manual.

Sincerely,

Pawn11