4 ms·

> The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. This illustrates my pointer perfectly. This quote is just a fancy way of saying "It's great i

> The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. This illustrates my pointer perfectly. This quote is just a fancy way of saying "It's great if you can get what you want without fighting." While true, pretty much every leader since the dawn of time has known that. Darius I, sent a mission to Sparta demanding earth and water for this very reason. The advice is nicely stated, but it isn't all that practically helpful.

chrisseaton 7y ago
> This illustrates my pointer perfectly. Well your point was that it wasn't used as guidance for war until we showed that it was... > While true, pretty much every leader since the dawn of time has known that. No I don't think they have. I think it has been constantly forgotten and rediscovered. Today when we talk about how to fight we might say this in terms of 'shatter the enemy's cohesion and will to fight' rather than fighting them directly. Get inside their OODA loop, match strength with weakness, in other words. It turns out people don't naturally do this! It has to be taught! They forgot this, for example, during WW1 when they fought attrition warfare. They focused on meeting the enemy and having a fight, toe-to-toe, force against force. There's something about human nature that seems to always lead people toward this approach by default, and we have to constantly remind ourselves of advice, using for example Tzu, to avoid it and instead of looking to fight the enemy, to break the enemy's cohesion.
crpatino 7y ago
No wonder you cannot apreciate Sun Tzu's work if you fail to grasp the difference between >>subduing your enemy without fighting<< and >>getting what you want without fighting.<< It's not even subtle. One requires, but is not limited, to activelly foreclose the enemy's opportunities to deploy their assets against you; the other simply consists of siting on your hands and waiting for the good life to happen to you.

chrisseaton 7y ago

> This illustrates my pointer perfectly. Well your point was that it wasn't used as guidance for war until we showed that it was... > While true, pretty much every leader since the dawn of time has known that. No I don't think they have. I think it has been constantly forgotten and rediscovered. Today when we talk about how to fight we might say this in terms of 'shatter the enemy's cohesion and will to fight' rather than fighting them directly. Get inside their OODA loop, match strength with weakness, in other words. It turns out people don't naturally do this! It has to be taught! They forgot this, for example, during WW1 when they fought attrition warfare. They focused on meeting the enemy and having a fight, toe-to-toe, force against force. There's something about human nature that seems to always lead people toward this approach by default, and we have to constantly remind ourselves of advice, using for example Tzu, to avoid it and instead of looking to fight the enemy, to break the enemy's cohesion.

crpatino 7y ago

No wonder you cannot apreciate Sun Tzu's work if you fail to grasp the difference between >>subduing your enemy without fighting<< and >>getting what you want without fighting.<< It's not even subtle. One requires, but is not limited, to activelly foreclose the enemy's opportunities to deploy their assets against you; the other simply consists of siting on your hands and waiting for the good life to happen to you.