Thread: The Art of War

Shek.Major sir,if you could send me a copy of USAWC stratergy research on
Sun Tzu by Collen K.Holmes or the new translation by Zi J.H.Haung ,then allow a couple of years to come to a conclusion will I still be eligable to vote??

from the opinion of a civvie,

i'd say sun tzu. sun tzu embraces deception as the totality of warfare, whereas clausewitz does not (he rejects it).

from another angle- a chinese one- sun tzu emphasizes the concept of shih, a state of warfare that tries to reduce enemy morale/thinking and better yet, flip the enemy to the friendly side (all without a fight).

clausewitz, on the other hand, looks at material factors and emphasizes the concept of bringing all these together and crushing the enemy through maximum force.

thus, in a security environment where the US military (as well as others) will be called upon for COIN operations, it seems to me that the former fits best in regards to what the US wants to carry out.

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Shek.Major sir,if you could send me a copy of USAWC stratergy research on
Sun Tzu by Collen K.Holmes or the new translation by Zi J.H.Haung ,then allow a couple of years to come to a conclusion will I still be eligable to vote??

Dave,

Unfortunately, I have but one copy of Sun Tzu, and I'm not even sure what translation it is since it's in at the office. If I haven't been fired from the forum by WAB and the forum removed by the staff once you've finished reading the above works, then you're more than welcome to post then However, I'm sure that from the sounds of it, you are much better read on the subject than I and quite prepared to comment now.

For those who haven't read Sun Tzu yet, here's a link to an online version. It's actually a pretty quick read.

http://www.sonshi.com/learn.html

As far as my take on the question, I think that neither work is particularly more relevant such that the other is either obsolete or of marginal worth. The brillance of Clausewitz is the central tenet that your military operations must support the political objective, while I think that Sun Tzu provides a much better look at the utility of intelligence and de-emphasizes fighting as the only way to victory.

Shek

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Shek.Major sir,if you could send me a copy of USAWC stratergy research on
Sun Tzu by Collen K.Holmes or the new translation by Zi J.H.Haung ,then allow a couple of years to come to a conclusion will I still be eligable to vote??

Nuts ,you never cease to amaze me

Shek, i have a feeling you had more "fun" reading Mr Sun than Mr Clauswitz,who had no humour and was very political..but..a Maj Gen at 38 he must have had something going for him!!

Originally Posted by dave lukins

Shek, i have a feeling you had more "fun" reading Mr Sun than Mr Clauswitz,who had no humour and was very political..but..a Maj Gen at 38 he must have had something going for him!!

Maybe that's why I've never actually read the full text of "On War" , but have rather limited myself so far to the chapters that talk more on strategy as opposed to some of his chapters that are a little more tactically focused. I'm reading On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War by COL Harry Summers, and while I don't buy his thesis that it was a doomed to lose strategy to focus on COIN in Vietnam, his linkage or lack thereof of US Army strategy at the time to Clausewitz is fantastic and has been illuminating.

Astlalis.Sorry,just read your reply...quite right a man who thinks before a fight must conquer a man who fights before thinking before a fight..unless he has a bigger gun in his hand!!lol