Chapter Three: On Preparing Stratagems

Author: * Sankira Qin - 5 Posts on this thread out of 1,342 Posts sitewide.
Date: Dec 10, 2004 - 16:22

Chapter Three: On Preparing Strategems

The Text	Comments, Notes, and Alternate Translations
Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.	Basically, this reminds of us Taoist beliefs in harmony, balance and moderation. Destruction is inconsistent with The Way and is, therefore, to be discouraged. In addition, the need to fight and destroy only requires subsequent rebuilding, which adds to the overall cost of the war in the first place. And finally, the loss of even a single soldier comes at a price to morale and effectiveness of the company, the regiment, and therefore the army. It is better to weaken them, than to destroy them for they may be of use to you in the future.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.	This is a basic tenet of Sun-Tzu's philosophy. In it's most famous translation, "To win without combat is the acme of skill." This does not mean you don't fight; all forms of strategy are, effectively, a means of fighting the enemy. But to beat him without having to engage him in the field is the penultimate form of generalship.
Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.	(Also translated as: "Therefore, the best warfare strategy is to attack the enemy's plans, next is to attack alliances, next is to attack the army, and the worst is to attack a walled city.") Basically, this says that battle is a failure of strategy. If your strategems are sound, you can achieve your objectives without conflict, which saves lives, property and resources. However, there are occasions when conflict cannot be avoided, and in this event, the best to worst means of winning are: to disrupt the enemy's plan for victory; to destroy his alliances by sowing mistrust and drive wedges between him and his allies via covert operations; "A house divided against itself can not stand." to fight his army, i.e. engage in actual battle; to fight the army AND the population together (especially in a fortified position).
The rule is, not to besiege walled cities if it can possibly be avoided. The preparation of mantlets, movable shelters, and various implements of war, will take up three whole months; and the piling up of mounds over against the walls will take three months more.	This is simply a discussion of how long it would take to prepare for a successful assault on a walled city. It points out that besieging a city is NOT a means of winning a swift victory (as was encouraged in Chapter Two).
The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege.	In this scenario, we are warned against becoming impatient and attempting to win a swift victory without the proper preparations.
Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.	The most skilled general will know how to exploit human psychology and martial arts to his advantage and will basically out-maneuver his opponent into surrender. By using tactics BEFORE battle is engaged, bloodshed may be avoided altogether. The most graphic modern day example of this, of course, would be Operation Desert Storm, where the enemy left their tanks and weapons in the field and turned themselves over to the US forces with very few shots ever fired. Yet, in Sun Tzu's view, even this would not qualify as the epitome of skill, because of the destruction in the cities for the weeks prior.
With his forces intact he will dispute the mastery of the Empire, and thus, without losing a man, his triumph will be complete. This is the method of attacking by stratagem.
It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. If equally matched, offer battle; if slightly inferior in numbers, evade the enemy; if quite unequal in every way, flee from him.	Basically this is advice on how to pick one's battles. In other words, when to fight and when to run away. Although, figuring your own and the enemy's forces should be done on the basis of capability and not on numbers alone, it does give one a general idea of how to decide how to proceed when faced with the enemy.
Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.
Now the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak.	Sun-Tzu always emphasizes the value of the general. A wise, skilled general is a national treasure, but he is also a source of strength and protection for the nation. Success begins with the leadership. Generals should be given their rank because of skill (not connections) and they should be allowed to do their work unimpeded. If a general is not doing the job well enough to protect the country, he should not be directed by others; he should be replaced with someone who CAN do the job.
There are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army. By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds. By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers.	It is interesting that Sun-Tzu here is speaking of the "ruler" and not the "general" — for the most part, Sun-Tzu subscribes to the idea that once in the field, the general should be given the latitude to ignore edicts from the king at home for these very reasons. Only the general can truly know what state his troops are in and whether or not they can feasibly comply with his commands without hopelessly entangling themselves with the enemy and suffering great losses. Even retreat, when the army is not in a position to retreat, can cause more damage than remaining in place. In addition, it undermines the morale of the soldiers and the authority of the commanders for the king to dabble in the army's affairs once they are encamped in the field. Attempting to employ the same "management methods" in an army that are used in business will lead to a lack of confidence in the leadership. A soldier must not be sent orders by someone who does not understand the soldier job. In civilian life, being asked by an out-of-touch manager to perform what is effectively an impossible task can lead to stress and anger on the part of the worker. The worst that might happen would be a failure of the business venture. In an army, however, such mistakes can be disastrous. Warfare is a matter of life and death, and inappropriate orders can lead to loss of confidence in the leadership, mutiny, unnecessary deaths on the battlefield, and even the loss of the war. You cannot expect the men of an army to respond and perform above and beyond for leaders and officers who do not get to know them as actual people or who have not taken the time to discover their capabilities. Getting to know the men under one's command is the first priority for a newly assigned officer. Soldiers will take risks for a leader in whom they have confidence and who has shown an interest in them. They won't do this for those who remain at a distance or in whom they have no trust.
But when the army is restless and distrustful, trouble is sure to come from the other feudal princes. This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away.	Confusion, disharmony, and hesitancy will cause the enemy to press his own advantages and may result in catastrophic losses if not defeat.
Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.	The five factors that determine who will win.
Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.