Quote:
Originally Posted by shek
You've got it backwards. Clausewitz's most famous dictum is that war is the "continuation of politics by other means."
However, it is nice to have company in the "neither" column and I like your thought that they are really complementary.
|
Read em again Shek, "war is a continuation of politics by other means" is VC's out in dealing with the politcal aspect of going to war. He then spends his time detailing how to win the battle. One reason he rejects decpetion is it drains away from the schwerepunkt. Very sound reasoning on the tactical and operational level where the goal is to find your enemies center of gravity and knock it out so that his will to resist is broken.
On the strategic level and on the politcal level deception is critical, VC surely knew this. The fact that he does not distinguish between strategic deception and frivilous tactical trickery shows again his fixation on the tactical and operational aspects of war.
Sun Tzu on the other hand spends most of his time advising on what a ruler (political head) has to do to enable his generals to win. His advice to generals is more cautionary on what to do to prepare before the fight, not how to actually grab your enemy by the throat and throttle the life out of him.
Both ST and VC have blind spots. ST is so cautionary that his teachings almost breed timidity, and a student who is not already in possesion of a surfeit of agression will lose every fight tryign to follow ST's precepts. History is repleat with such commanders who had every thing they needed to win but agression.
VC on the other hand is so fixated on the idea that centers of gravity like capitols and major cities are the key to victory, that enemies who place thier reliance on alternatives can often avoid the decisive blow he calls for and thus remain in the fight.
The two blend well together becuase the caution/agression play off agaisnt one another while together they deal with various aspects and levels of war from the politcal to the tactical.