8 ms·

As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any o

As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .

UweSchmidt 4y ago
Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy, and the interest of the military industrial complex don't help when you try to "appear weak when you are strong" or to "disguise a plan". For a mid-level army officer these things are probably even less applicable. I still think there is huge potential for an overarching, creative strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if the difficulties of Soviet/US forces in Afghanistan were not an accident, but sun-tzu'd in some way.
- mantas 4y ago
  On the other hand, Russians employed „appear strong when you're weak“ very well leading up to Ukraine war. Everybody believed the myth of the 2nd army of the world. However, they ate their own propaganda...
  - baybal2 4y ago
    [dead]
- mcv 4y ago
  > Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy I think modern democracies do a much better job of separating military and civilian leadership than dictatorships do. Putin seems to be too personally involved in micromanaging his war, insisting on conquests that are simply not possible (like Bakhmut and some other places). Hitler similarly interfered with his generals and hampered his war effort that way. Zelensky is of course involved with the war, but he listens to his generals. > "appear weak when you are strong" That only seems useful if you want to lure the enemy into an attack in order to ambush him, but with our modern day sensibilities about the value of life, we prefer to have no attack at all. More applicable to us is "appear strong when you are weak", although such secrets never last long, so we prefer to appear strong when strong, in order to discourage any attack. Also, Russia appeared strong while weak, and that didn't exactly work out well when Putin called his own bluff. Turns out he incorrectly believed the strong appearance of his own army. And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked. It's not that these concerns are irrelevant, but they're a lot more complex than Sun Tzu makes them out to be, and it's possible to fall for your own disguise. Or maybe the civilian leadership can fall for the military's disguise.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    ""appear weak when you are strong" That only seems useful if you want to lure the enemy into an attack in order to ambush him" No, it is also good (necessary) for preparing a good offensive. If the enemy thinks you are weak in some area, he does not expect a push from that direction. Ukraine did just that last fall very succesfull. Show off force and big noisy preparation of a offensive south and starting it loud. And then push hard, fast and unexpected in the north, after the enemy already moved more troops further south. And then confusion and panic among the enemy, so a relativly small force could conquer vast lands.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    > And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked. That makes it sound as if Putin attacked because an opportunity presented itself. I don't think that's why he attacked. I think he attacked because he felt he had no choice. Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rump Russia was clearly a state dependent mainly on resource-extraction, which desn't promise a great independent future. Especially with Europe's increasing development of non-fossil energy, earnings from fossil fuel exports could be expected to diminish rapidly. But why Ukraine? Well, setting aside his deranged opinions about the historic unity of Ukraine and Russia, and the historic destiny of the "Rus", Ukraine was rapidly becoming closer to Europe, and Ukrainians were clearly happy with that prospect. Having a successful, happy fragment of the USSR on his border threatened his control over his own population. > Turns out he incorrectly believed the strong appearance of his own army. Agreed! In fact everyone overestimated the strength of his army.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rump Russia was clearly a state dependent mainly on resource-extraction, which desn't promise a great independent future. Especially with Europe's increasing development of non-fossil energy, earnings from fossil fuel exports could be expected to diminish rapidly. "Rapidly" but still on a decades scale, which Putin is unlikely to live to. Meanwhile he has forced Europe to look elsewhere for energy and drastically accelerated their plans. > But why Ukraine? Well, setting aside his deranged opinions about the historic unity of Ukraine and Russia, and the historic destiny of the "Rus", Ukraine was rapidly becoming closer to Europe, and Ukrainians were clearly happy with that prospect. Having a successful, happy fragment of the USSR on his border threatened his control over his own population. Poland and the Baltics are already on his border, and most of the former Warsaw Pact is already in the EU and happily progressing, with quality of life drastically better than in Russia. I really don't think this excuse works.
gjvc 4y ago
plenty of people on here are like this!
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good ones have done their homework, but it's not their profession in the end.
- shakow 4y ago
  > the president is also the top military commander It's also true in quite some other countries, and it is to ensure that the military remains subordinated to the civil government, after the many examples of military coups in History.
  - Razengan 4y ago
    As if they can't just ignore the civilian commander if they really wanted to?
    - SamBam 4y ago
      They can, but you have over a million members of the military who have all sworn an oath that they will "obey the orders of the President of the United States." If they had all sworn an oath that they will "obey the orders of General McEvilFace," it would be a lot easier to maneuver all your coup pawns into place even over the protestations of the president, even without those soldiers needing to fully realize that a coup was being set up.
      - js2 4y ago
        I just want to point out that their oath is first to uphold the Constitution, then to the President, then to their officers above them. https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-military-service.html https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-m... Americans disagree about a lot, including how to interpret the Constitution and which parts of it are more or less important. But I would really hope that myself and any other random American can at least agree that our Constitution is the rule book that we must all live by and that it is ultimately what binds us as a nation.
abdulhaq 4y ago
Most HNers, and sadly I include myself in this, couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. We read Sun Tzu because it is recommended reading in the intelligentsia's mindset. It seems cool to learn battle technique from an ancient Chinese text. If I wanted to learn how to really fight a battle I'd go to Sandhurst or West Point.
- pseudostem 4y ago
  Origins according to a many-times-over gilded comment on reddit (I forget which sub) went something like this - subservient office culture in Japan where the big boss was reading it, so it spread to the entire organisation from where it spread to other organisations. It got to a point where no one knew why they were reading it, just that they had to. Around the same time it caught imagination of the Americans because of the Japanese (who were actually pretty efficient at their jobs). Will look for the comment and post if it takes me less than 15 mins. Edit: forgot how bad reddit search was. While I did not find what I was looking for, this [0] is one high quality answer you may be interested in. Only top comments are heavily moderated on that sub. [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j37co/when_how_and_why_did_sun_tzus_the_art_of_war/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=AskHistorians&utm_content=t1_e8256t8 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j37co/when_...
rramadass 4y ago
While you are correct that these sort of books can be taken too far (i.e. they are not an answer to everything) there is much value in studying these sorts of books (Chinese/Japanese/Indian etc.) since they are a repository of various stratagems/techniques/aphorisms/quotes which can be adapted to context (not necessarily explicit Warfare) to derive value. Human Nature has not changed much over the years though its external manifestations have. I also do not believe that you have to have served in the defense forces (which mainly focus on the mechanisms of Warfare) to understand them since they deal with general ideas/concepts/stratagems which are independent of a specific domain. As an example, the quote Cast a Brick to Attract Jade from The 36 stratagems of War (https://changingminds.org/disciplines/warfare/36_strategems/36_stratagems_17.htm https://changingminds.org/disciplines/warfare/36_strategems/...) is eminently usable in design/development/product plan meetings i.e. you present a simple and concrete idea as a starting point and then leave it to the attendees to build/modify/change it and come up with a best and final solution.
- detourdog 4y ago
  My interest in ancient cultures is how those people coped with life. Gilgamesh, torah, Aesop's fables, 1001 Arabian nights are interesting to me for how each culture dealt with and documented the human condition and social interactions. To me Sun Tzu writings and all the ancient writings are about preparing one's "mind" for an attitude that can be used to cope. The commonality of story to a culture strengthens the social structure. The commonality is used to apply old wisdom to seemingly new and complex events. These writings become the common thread.
  - rramadass 4y ago
    >the ancient writings are about preparing one's "mind" for an attitude that can be used to cope [with whatever Life may throw at you] This is exactly it! One of my interests is the study of "Worldly Wisdom"(have a bunch of books from different cultures in my collection) categorized into; 1) "Idealistic"(Ethical/Moral) - Lots of Philosophies/Holy Books/etc. deal with this. 2) "Realistic/Pragmatic"(the World as it is and not how you would like it to be) - These are the common books of Wisdom/Aphorisms/Quotes/etc. from Culture/Daily Life. 3) "Crooked/Cynical"(how to further self-interest/getting-back on wrongs) - These are books on Strategy/Kingship/etc. I find it quite transformational studying this subject since it teaches one all aspects of dealing with/making sense of Life. With the ascendancy of Scientific thought and decline of traditional Religions it has become even more necessary for each of us to chart our own ways with whatever advice (adapted to Modern Science/Times) we can glean from these ancient texts.
fedeb95 4y ago
I have no military background, but I like Sun Tzu's Art of War for some ideas about one's stance when engaging in "battle": I know it is more of a poetic liking than actual military advice.
RajT88 4y ago
> but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy Now, I haven't come across people quoting Sun Tzu in my career, but I know the type of person you're talking about. They are the type to either stick around short-term as execs, just a couple years, or to escape with a golden parachute when things start to turn. Un-surprisingly, their accomplishments are often enough detrimental to the customers, the business or both. They are aggressive, but don't really have much skin in the game.
Kranar 4y ago
I feel like this is the Seinfeld is Unfunny effect, where something that's been woven into the very fabric of a certain field is then found to be underwhelming or cliche, because it's been copied and iterated upon so many times. But 3000 years ago The Art of War was absolutely groundbreaking. Furthermore, as someone who like you has served in the armed forces, I agree amongst those who serve we do not think of "war is business", those in charge do absolutely think of "war as business".

UweSchmidt 4y ago

Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy, and the interest of the military industrial complex don't help when you try to "appear weak when you are strong" or to "disguise a plan". For a mid-level army officer these things are probably even less applicable. I still think there is huge potential for an overarching, creative strategy, and I wouldn't be surprised if the difficulties of Soviet/US forces in Afghanistan were not an accident, but sun-tzu'd in some way.

mantas 4y ago
On the other hand, Russians employed „appear strong when you're weak“ very well leading up to Ukraine war. Everybody believed the myth of the 2nd army of the world. However, they ate their own propaganda...
- baybal2 4y ago
  [dead]
mcv 4y ago
> Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy I think modern democracies do a much better job of separating military and civilian leadership than dictatorships do. Putin seems to be too personally involved in micromanaging his war, insisting on conquests that are simply not possible (like Bakhmut and some other places). Hitler similarly interfered with his generals and hampered his war effort that way. Zelensky is of course involved with the war, but he listens to his generals. > "appear weak when you are strong" That only seems useful if you want to lure the enemy into an attack in order to ambush him, but with our modern day sensibilities about the value of life, we prefer to have no attack at all. More applicable to us is "appear strong when you are weak", although such secrets never last long, so we prefer to appear strong when strong, in order to discourage any attack. Also, Russia appeared strong while weak, and that didn't exactly work out well when Putin called his own bluff. Turns out he incorrectly believed the strong appearance of his own army. And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked. It's not that these concerns are irrelevant, but they're a lot more complex than Sun Tzu makes them out to be, and it's possible to fall for your own disguise. Or maybe the civilian leadership can fall for the military's disguise.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  ""appear weak when you are strong" That only seems useful if you want to lure the enemy into an attack in order to ambush him" No, it is also good (necessary) for preparing a good offensive. If the enemy thinks you are weak in some area, he does not expect a push from that direction. Ukraine did just that last fall very succesfull. Show off force and big noisy preparation of a offensive south and starting it loud. And then push hard, fast and unexpected in the north, after the enemy already moved more troops further south. And then confusion and panic among the enemy, so a relativly small force could conquer vast lands.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked. That makes it sound as if Putin attacked because an opportunity presented itself. I don't think that's why he attacked. I think he attacked because he felt he had no choice. Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rump Russia was clearly a state dependent mainly on resource-extraction, which desn't promise a great independent future. Especially with Europe's increasing development of non-fossil energy, earnings from fossil fuel exports could be expected to diminish rapidly. But why Ukraine? Well, setting aside his deranged opinions about the historic unity of Ukraine and Russia, and the historic destiny of the "Rus", Ukraine was rapidly becoming closer to Europe, and Ukrainians were clearly happy with that prospect. Having a successful, happy fragment of the USSR on his border threatened his control over his own population. > Turns out he incorrectly believed the strong appearance of his own army. Agreed! In fact everyone overestimated the strength of his army.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rump Russia was clearly a state dependent mainly on resource-extraction, which desn't promise a great independent future. Especially with Europe's increasing development of non-fossil energy, earnings from fossil fuel exports could be expected to diminish rapidly. "Rapidly" but still on a decades scale, which Putin is unlikely to live to. Meanwhile he has forced Europe to look elsewhere for energy and drastically accelerated their plans. > But why Ukraine? Well, setting aside his deranged opinions about the historic unity of Ukraine and Russia, and the historic destiny of the "Rus", Ukraine was rapidly becoming closer to Europe, and Ukrainians were clearly happy with that prospect. Having a successful, happy fragment of the USSR on his border threatened his control over his own population. Poland and the Baltics are already on his border, and most of the former Warsaw Pact is already in the EU and happily progressing, with quality of life drastically better than in Russia. I really don't think this excuse works.

gjvc 4y ago

plenty of people on here are like this!

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good ones have done their homework, but it's not their profession in the end.

shakow 4y ago
> the president is also the top military commander It's also true in quite some other countries, and it is to ensure that the military remains subordinated to the civil government, after the many examples of military coups in History.
- Razengan 4y ago
  As if they can't just ignore the civilian commander if they really wanted to?
  - SamBam 4y ago
    They can, but you have over a million members of the military who have all sworn an oath that they will "obey the orders of the President of the United States." If they had all sworn an oath that they will "obey the orders of General McEvilFace," it would be a lot easier to maneuver all your coup pawns into place even over the protestations of the president, even without those soldiers needing to fully realize that a coup was being set up.
    - js2 4y ago
      I just want to point out that their oath is first to uphold the Constitution, then to the President, then to their officers above them. https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-military-service.html https://www.military.com/join-armed-forces/swearing-in-for-m... Americans disagree about a lot, including how to interpret the Constitution and which parts of it are more or less important. But I would really hope that myself and any other random American can at least agree that our Constitution is the rule book that we must all live by and that it is ultimately what binds us as a nation.

abdulhaq 4y ago

Most HNers, and sadly I include myself in this, couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag. We read Sun Tzu because it is recommended reading in the intelligentsia's mindset. It seems cool to learn battle technique from an ancient Chinese text. If I wanted to learn how to really fight a battle I'd go to Sandhurst or West Point.

pseudostem 4y ago
Origins according to a many-times-over gilded comment on reddit (I forget which sub) went something like this - subservient office culture in Japan where the big boss was reading it, so it spread to the entire organisation from where it spread to other organisations. It got to a point where no one knew why they were reading it, just that they had to. Around the same time it caught imagination of the Americans because of the Japanese (who were actually pretty efficient at their jobs). Will look for the comment and post if it takes me less than 15 mins. Edit: forgot how bad reddit search was. While I did not find what I was looking for, this [0] is one high quality answer you may be interested in. Only top comments are heavily moderated on that sub. [0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j37co/when_how_and_why_did_sun_tzus_the_art_of_war/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=AskHistorians&utm_content=t1_e8256t8 https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j37co/when_...

rramadass 4y ago

While you are correct that these sort of books can be taken too far (i.e. they are not an answer to everything) there is much value in studying these sorts of books (Chinese/Japanese/Indian etc.) since they are a repository of various stratagems/techniques/aphorisms/quotes which can be adapted to context (not necessarily explicit Warfare) to derive value. Human Nature has not changed much over the years though its external manifestations have. I also do not believe that you have to have served in the defense forces (which mainly focus on the mechanisms of Warfare) to understand them since they deal with general ideas/concepts/stratagems which are independent of a specific domain. As an example, the quote Cast a Brick to Attract Jade from The 36 stratagems of War (https://changingminds.org/disciplines/warfare/36_strategems/36_stratagems_17.htm https://changingminds.org/disciplines/warfare/36_strategems/...) is eminently usable in design/development/product plan meetings i.e. you present a simple and concrete idea as a starting point and then leave it to the attendees to build/modify/change it and come up with a best and final solution.

detourdog 4y ago
My interest in ancient cultures is how those people coped with life. Gilgamesh, torah, Aesop's fables, 1001 Arabian nights are interesting to me for how each culture dealt with and documented the human condition and social interactions. To me Sun Tzu writings and all the ancient writings are about preparing one's "mind" for an attitude that can be used to cope. The commonality of story to a culture strengthens the social structure. The commonality is used to apply old wisdom to seemingly new and complex events. These writings become the common thread.
- rramadass 4y ago
  >the ancient writings are about preparing one's "mind" for an attitude that can be used to cope [with whatever Life may throw at you] This is exactly it! One of my interests is the study of "Worldly Wisdom"(have a bunch of books from different cultures in my collection) categorized into; 1) "Idealistic"(Ethical/Moral) - Lots of Philosophies/Holy Books/etc. deal with this. 2) "Realistic/Pragmatic"(the World as it is and not how you would like it to be) - These are the common books of Wisdom/Aphorisms/Quotes/etc. from Culture/Daily Life. 3) "Crooked/Cynical"(how to further self-interest/getting-back on wrongs) - These are books on Strategy/Kingship/etc. I find it quite transformational studying this subject since it teaches one all aspects of dealing with/making sense of Life. With the ascendancy of Scientific thought and decline of traditional Religions it has become even more necessary for each of us to chart our own ways with whatever advice (adapted to Modern Science/Times) we can glean from these ancient texts.

fedeb95 4y ago

I have no military background, but I like Sun Tzu's Art of War for some ideas about one's stance when engaging in "battle": I know it is more of a poetic liking than actual military advice.

RajT88 4y ago

> but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy Now, I haven't come across people quoting Sun Tzu in my career, but I know the type of person you're talking about. They are the type to either stick around short-term as execs, just a couple years, or to escape with a golden parachute when things start to turn. Un-surprisingly, their accomplishments are often enough detrimental to the customers, the business or both. They are aggressive, but don't really have much skin in the game.

Kranar 4y ago

I feel like this is the Seinfeld is Unfunny effect, where something that's been woven into the very fabric of a certain field is then found to be underwhelming or cliche, because it's been copied and iterated upon so many times. But 3000 years ago The Art of War was absolutely groundbreaking. Furthermore, as someone who like you has served in the armed forces, I agree amongst those who serve we do not think of "war is business", those in charge do absolutely think of "war as business".