Does Sun Tzu Have Advice for the US, Israel and Iran?
Sun Tzu was a Chinese general who lived around 544–496 BC. He is traditionally regarded as the author of The Art of War, frequently quoted for his good sense concerning the initiation and prosecution of war. In these testing times, it seemed appropriate to have a skim through what he had to say and pick out some of his maxims and consider who, if anyone, has been following them in recent weeks:
All warfare is based on deception.
Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.
Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.
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 recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.
Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
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.
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.
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.
Therefore, the skilful 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 general who is skilled in defence hides in the most secret recesses of the earth; he who is skilled in attack flashes forth from the topmost heights of heaven. Thus, on the one hand we have ability to protect ourselves; on the other, a victory that is complete.
He wins his battles by making no mistakes. Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory, for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated.
Hence the skilful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
The clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.
By holding out advantages to him, he can cause the enemy to approach of his own accord; or, by inflicting damage, he can make it impossible for the enemy to draw near.
No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
If it is to your advantage, make a forward move; if not, stay where you are.
Anger may in time change to gladness; vexation may be succeeded by content.
But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life.
Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
When an army feeds its horses with grain and kills its cattle for food, and when the men do not hang their cooking-pots over the campfires, showing that they will not return to their tents, you may know that they are determined to fight to the death.
That’s just a selection. If you want to read the rest, you can read a translation here. One point Sun Tzu did not consider is what happens a general goes to war against an enemy who welcomes, even celebrates, the prospect of a war that can only end in either his victory or his glorious martyrdom, for he plays by an entirely different rulebook. But then a clever general would have worked that out beforehand.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Very good.
One of the arguments I’ve seen used a few times on these pages is that the Iran regime is nasty and must not be allowed to get more powerful. That may be the case but is there not a long list of countries that you could say the same of? There are some nasty seeming countries that are already powerful – why are we not bombing them? Because some of them are “allies” and some of them have nuclear weapons. But the Iranians must not be allowed to get a nuke because then we would not be able to bomb them… I would 100% not want to live in Iran, and I disapprove of their style of government, but I don’t feel it’s our place to go about changing that.
Iranian nastiness was of a different order. They nearly had nukes and did have ballistic missiles.
Their danger was caused by religious fundamental views of Islam. Their threats against Israel, the west and all who did not accept their brand of Islam was serious and dangerous. I am grateful that US and Israel have saved the world from the worst of all that but if they can do a bit more we could begin to relax.
Lots of countries threaten things and are powerful and nasty to their own citizens and others when they get the chance. You may be right but your case seems to me to rest on what they might/would have done in the future – I just don’t see that as compelling enough. The USA and allies have enormous military power, which acts as a deterrent, usually. I also just don’t think that Iran in 10 years time will be any better than it is now – worse probably, if other interventions are anything to go by.
“I also just don’t think that Iran in 10 years time will be any better than it is now – worse probably.”
I share your doubts.
Surely the choice of deciding what possible outcome might pertain is a luxury that isn’t affordable, given the nature of the threat. There being even a slight possibility of having a nuclear bomb thrown at me inclines me to act – no matter the chance that the bomb is never actually thrown. But hey, the Iranians threw a whole bunch of (non-nuclear) bombs at uninvolved countries recently – then apologized – then threw some more! The possibility the something might happen in the future is actually quite significant, right?
“But hey, the Iranians threw a whole bunch of (non-nuclear) bombs at uninvolved countries recently – then apologized – then threw some more!”
As I recall this was AFTER the USA and Israel started bombing them with the tacit or material support of their allies in the region. If we’re talking about track records of bombing people, the USA does pretty well. But of course that is always in defence of “democracy and freedom”.
I have to agree. The oppressive medieval government of Iran is a problem for Iranians, its foreign policy is a problem for the wider world.
“… a long list of countries that you could say the same of?”
There isn’t a long list committed to annihilation of Israel and the Jews with a fanatical determination to develop nuclear weapons to do so.
Nor a list of Countries led by theocratic zealots for whom death and paradise is the ambition, not a long, cushy life on Earth, so “Mutual Assured Destruction” is no deterrent as long as they get the first shots off and annihilate their enemy.
Nor a long list of Countries wishing to annexe the Arab States and rule Arabia, then control a huge chunk of the World’s hydrocarbon supply.
Do you feel it is our place to change the regime, before or after they nuke Israel and hold the rest of us to ransom?
Again your case rests on what they might do in the future, based on things they have said. They have also said they don’t want nuclear weapons and are not developing them. You choose to believe their rhetoric about Israel but not about nukes. I’ve no axe to grind here either way – I quite like Trump and the USA, in some ways, and feel the same about Israel. Equally this is a costly and disruptive war and I also question the morality – at least with respect to the suffering of victims in all the countries involved.
Israel is a nuclear country that does not allow any inspection of its arsenal. At least Iran allowed full inspection but it will do so no longer. Zionist Israel is an apartheid state of dangerous theological.zealots too!
I agree with you, tof. I am highly doubtful about the aims (declared and undeclared) of this affair, and I fail to see how it is going to make anything any better.
I just wish somebody wise enough, in possession of Sun Tzu’s foresight, could tell us what the right thing to do would have been.
1.) On the one hand, I can fully understand that, based on what happened to the Jews during the Second World War, they feel extremely uneasy about the idea of their sworn enemy – and one whose openly declared aim is to annihilate them – developing a nuclear weapon.
2.) On the other hand, I have my doubts that bombing Iran will actually achieve the desired outcome.
Sun Tzu most certainly does have advice for the U.S. and Israel, quoted above:
‘The highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy’s plans’.
Deterrence is the only true victory.
Iran has enough enriched uranium to create at least eight warheads, using IAEA inspection figures.
Iran has ICBMs capable of reaching Tel Aviv, Diego Garcia and London.
Deterrence has clearly failed to prevent Iran gaining nuclear weapons capability.
How then to balk them? Decapitation until a leader presents himself who gets the message. If none present themselves, foment insurrection.
There is an insurrection taking place in Iran. Will it amount to anything? Only time will tell.
There looked to be the beginnings of an insurrection, but since the bombing started I’ve not seen any news about that. Nothing like attacking a country to unite its people. It’s not just decapitation – we are told at least that their military capability is being severely degraded. Once it’s finished, they may not be able to defend themselves. Perhaps as the USA and Israel are such nice people, Iran won’t need the ability to defend itself from them or all the other countries in the region. Maybe once they’ve “got the message” the US can dredge up some relative of the Shah to be in charge. I am sure that would go down well.
Exactly.
I don’t doubt that a lot of Iranians hate their regime.
But now all of a sudden, 47 years of propaganda turns out to have an element of truth in it: the US is the enemy.
And I’m sure that the death of their schoolgirls in the air strikes won’t make the Iranians develop a liking for the US either.
Their schoolgirls were killed by the Iranian regime, not the Israelis.
Give the enemy more opportunity for martyrdom. More martyrdom, less martyrs.
They won’t do it, but the way the war against Japan was ended might be a clue to dealing with these sorts.