10.018 Therefore, if the Way of warfare indicates certain...

Therefore, if the Way of warfare indicates certain victory, though the ruler does not want to do battle, the general may do battle. If the Way of warfare indicates defeat, though the ruler wants to do battle, the general may not do battle.

__________________
Sign up for the indispensable Sonshi Daily

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

POV

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, if the Way of warfare indicates certain victory, though the ruler does not want to do battle, the general may do battle. If the Way of warfare indicates defeat, though the ruler wants to do battle, the general may not do battle.

---

__________________
Respectfully Yours,


{* CARDINAL999 *}

"In the Field of Observation, Fortune Favors the Prepared (and the Bold)."

"The stillness in stillness is not the true stillness; only when there is stillness in motion does the universal rhythm manifest." - Old Daoist Text

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

A general will know, and the supreme leader may not know whether victory is possible or not. This is why a leader should listen to his generals.

Gonzo

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Agree w/ CARDINAL & Gonzo
The "Armchair Ruler" should always let his or her "Strategist- Generals" do their job regarding to the business of war.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Sun Tzu said, "Therefore, if the Way of warfare indicates certain victory, though the ruler does not want to do battle, the general may do battle. If the Way of warfare indicates defeat, though the ruler wants to do battle, the general may not do battle."

The prudent general knows that when she has calculated victory that it must be grabbed before the "door of advantage" closes. The general also knows that if she has calculated defeat that she must not open the "door of advantage" for the opposition. The general's duty is to maintain the integrity of the army. To do this she must make some tough decisions.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

I would think that the general should know more about the mechanicsof warfare and the necessary calculations. The general is a good person for a reality check for the leader. He can advise that a course of action will be sucessful or fail. He bears responsibility for the safety of his troops not to put them onto death ground for frivilous reasons.

Pawn12

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Delegate

quote:

---

Originally posted by sonshi
Therefore, if the Way of warfare indicates certain victory, though the ruler does not want to do battle, the general may do battle. If the Way of warfare indicates defeat, though the ruler wants to do battle, the general may not do battle.

---

__________________
Truthseeker


Suffering is the breaking of the shell that encloses our understanding


"Truth is narrowed down and made a plaything for those who are weak, for those who are only momentarily discontented. Truth cannot be brought down; rather the individual must make the effort to ascend to it."

Krishnamurti

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Be both a general and a ruler

I think being both a general and a ruler would make a good leader. For if the general does not have the civility of a ruler, he is halfway of a good leader, but if a ruler who does not have a warlike temper of general, he is halfway of being a good leader. As Sun Tzu quoted somewhere, a leader must be both.

__________________
Kaisog

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a step.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

This has been one of the most difficult lines for me to understand, and reconcile with the idea of the Art of War being a manual for peace. If you read it literally, it means that the military should drive policy in a country - which never really works that well. It seems that many of the various conflicts in Asia in recent history and contemporary affairs have been driven by militaries deliberately being delegated too much authority. Even when it's possible to win, might doesn't make right.

That's the literal reading. The Art of War is often used as a business manual, though, and that should have been a big clue. Businesses in Asia tend to think of themselves as agents of the state - not like in the West, (particularly in America) where they generally consider the state to be an obstacle. One good example is in Japan, when Arab countries insisted that they boycott Israel if they were going to sell them oil. Even after the Japanese government decided end the boycott, some Japanese businesses still wouldn't sell to Israel, because that was what they thought would be in Japan's national interests. If you think of the "general" here being a business, then of course they should decide to go ahead or retreat without the direction of the ruler. (Except perhaps in the rare sort of case just described.) And, as with the overall theme of the Art of War, it results in a win-win situation.

As always, modern China (and Japan) give us clues for interpretation. The obvious interpretation isn't always the best one.

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged