Shek

Z,

I see your distinction now, which to me amounts to the difference between strategy and grand strategy. Thanks for clearing up my confusion on the topic.

Shek

__________________
"So little pains do the vulgar take in the investigation of truth, accepting readily the first story that comes to hand." Thucydides 1.20.3

zraver

any time

Swift Sword

Ironduke,

Your Ferrous Excellency,

I thought that "The Art of War" dripped with references to asymmetrical offsets.

For instance (Griffith translation):

a. 1:25-26

"When he is united, divide him"

"Attack when he is unprepared; sally out when he does not expect you"

b. 6:4-5

"When the enemy is at ease, be able to weary him; when well fed, to starve him; when at rest, make him move."

Appear at places to which he must hasten; move swiftly where he does not expect you".

This, of course, assumes that the definition of assymetry is to create strategic effect by avoiding the other fellow when/where/how he is unambiguously at advantage while creating and/or otherwise exploiting vulnerabilities.

The above quotes may be applied at the tactical, regional or strategic level but application at any level has to have an attack on the enemies strategic thinking as its primary goal.

Regards,

William

__________________
Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

Swift Sword

Mr. Grim,

An excellent choice as well.

I reread that a few month's ago and when reflecting on it, two things come to mind:

1. When you think of it in terms of "Five Spheres" rather than "Five Rings", it takes on a whole new dimension (but do not ask me what it is because I have not thought it through to both its logical and non-logical (please note I did not say "illogical") conclusions yet);

2. Musashi, being Ronin, was unfettered by orthodoxy and thus not at the mercy of the Chinese classics which were de rigeur in the "service academies" of the day.

To put Musashi in context, see some influence of Sun Tzu on Musahi's contemporaries who went through formal military education and read another useful book in general, look up Munenori's "The Book of Family Traditions of the Art of War".

Have a good weekend,

William

Shek

Well, it looks like Ms. Hilton will have plenty of time to catch up on her reading in the upcoming weeks.

Attached Images

paris-hilton-suntzu.jpg (67.4 KB, 98 views)

xinhui

Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and Mao were my required reading during my 2nd year.

Grim

Thankyou Sir I will check it out. All suggestions for reading are welcomed. Sorry to take so long to reply, my son was kind enough to rebuild my computer for me the other day and I am still trying to work out the bugs.

aktarian

May I suggest "Masters of War: Classical Strategic Thought" by Michael I. Handel? He compares Clausewitz, Sun Tzu and to a degree others and compares what they have to say about certain aspects of strategy.

If you are going to get it be aware there are several editions, make sure you have newest.

soutie

never read the book ,but was,nt san tu or whatever his name was defeated in battle cos he did,nt read his own book

Shek

Soutie,
I hadn't heard that before, however, I'd offer that many great historical and art of war authors tasted defeat on the battlefield and then went on to develop their own very influential and comprehensive writings - Thucydides and Machiavelli come to mind.

dave angel

Machiavelli shows you how to win a war without having to fight it, Sun Tzo shows you how to prepare a for war and then win it, while Von Clausewitz...

well, he's a German, WTF would he know about winning wars?


sorry to intrude in a thread of learning, but its a very old BA joke that just has to dragged up at any opportunity...

of the two named options my preference is Sun Tzo, he talks of warfighting in all its forms as opposed to Von Clausewitz who - for me at least - is much more a "here's a war, fight it" kind of thinker.

my personal preference is Machiavelli, on a personal level because i'm a complete siht of a human being so i think we'd get on well, and professionally because i like to win my wars without having to go to the inconvenience of rousing myself from my pit.

__________________
before criticizing someone, walk a mile in their shoes.................... then when you do criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes.

deadkenny

Point taken regarding the 'modern' version of 'total war', and regarding protracted battles. However Stalingrad was in fact fought from the second half of August '42 to Feb. 1 '43, or just about 5.5 months. So, two years is rather an exaggeration.

Officer of Engineers

I so stand corrected but I was actually thinking the entire front.

__________________
Chimo

zraver

The longest seige of the war was Lennigrad where again the Germans ignored V.C and got side tracked and locked into protracted battles that never offered a chance of deliveirng the decisive blow against the Soviet center of gravity. They made the same mistake at Verdun, while it was the right decsion at Sedan.

One reason I prefer VC over ST is friction. the AoW seems to read like a recipe book. Do this and you'll get that, but life doesn't work that way. If you do A, then B probably will follow, but you'd better be prepared for a different lettter or maybe even a whole new alphabet.

I also like VC becuase he drive shome the point about finding the center of gravity. A general spoon fed ST might have the best army ever seen on paper, but did the AoW teach him how to use it on the feild of battle once the fighting actually starts? To an extent using an army effectively is almost a magical skill. History has more bad commanders than good, but at least with On War, a commander can be trained to look for the obvious centers of gravity and go after them.

Officer of Engineers

There's also 2000 years difference between the two authors.