Shek

To get the discussion in the forum going, I'll start with a discussion/poll on which art of war philosopher is more relevant to the current operational environment? Clausewitz? Sun Tzu? Neither? Why or why not?

__________________
"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

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??

astralis

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.

__________________
Never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

-Marcus Aurelius, Meditations

Shek

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

tankie

Nuts ,you never cease to amaze me

__________________
TANKIE , WITHOUT WAX

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!!

Shek

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.

dave lukins

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

Low-tech

machivelli had an "art of war" too

never read it.

Shek

Low-tech,
I've never read it either; my only Machiavelli read to date is most of his Discourses on Livy. However, his most famous work is The Prince. His Discourses on Livy provide some great strategic insight and ways of thinking; however, it is confined to the strategy of the state and how it should be led.

lemontree

I voted Sun Tzu. He was relevant in the past, is relevant in the present and will remain so in the future too.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Low-tech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niccol%C3%B2_Machiavelli

down at the bottom are links to sites that host his complete works.

a few of them have "the art of war", all 7 books, and alot of other books he wrote.

i believe the prince was written for a specific person who was about to inherit a provence in italy. i dont know much about military stategy and stuff but its a good and an interesting look at mediavel europe at the time it was written. there is definately a military angle at parts, i dont know how good it is because he was a politician, not a general or soldier.

Officer of Engineers

The problem with both is neither deals with TOTAL war. There has to be a realization here. Alot of their thinkings have been bastardized to fit new scenarios that these two authors could never imagine. A single battle lasting 2 years, ie Stalingrad.

Neither author could have carried out old Genghis's answer to insurgency. 300 heads per soldier.

__________________
Chimo

troung

Jomini

__________________
To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

sappersgt

To be fair I only have read parts of both Sun Tzu and Von Clausewitz. I was a Corporal when I attended the Battle School, at that time the ONLY student Corporal there (I was promoted shortly thereafter).

Being the most junior ranked student in class the instructor would often ask me, "and what do think Corporal?." His point being that if the Corporal got it then the Captains and Majors should surely get it. Not trying to seem like a total idiot I would often quote something applicable that Clausewitz or Liddell Hart had written.

This usually got some nods of understanding from the instructor and the other students. Quoting Sun Tzu just got blank stares and didn't have near the same effect.

__________________
Reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei Deo
(Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and unto God the things which are God's)