"ArVa" wrote in message
om...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
...

snip

Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I can't find my copy of Griffin's
translation of Sun Tzu at the moment...



I know that story, I own my own copy of Griffin's translation of the
'Art of War'.

"O tempora, O mores". Although some of Sun Tzu's principles are still
appropriate, you must admit the societies we live in have somewhat
evolved since 500 BC and progresses such as democracy make some of Sun
Tzu's statements sound pretty outdated. In the "concubine story", I
find the part about the deliberate disobedience to the "ruler" who has
given an order very disturbing.

You are ignoring his point--once the rulers have decided to wage war, they
should let the warriors plan and execute the campaigns without undue
interference. History is rife with cases where this did not occur--take a
gander at Hitler's continual meddling. Or LBJ's (and his SecDef, McNamara)
micromanagement of operations in Vietnam. More recently, the restrictions
placed upon the NATO leadership during the Balkan operations, with each
nation's leadership feeling they had to approve each and every target. After
the civilian leader establishes the strategic goals, his role should be to
ensure that the other startegic components (diplomacy, economic support,
public support, etc.) support the obtaining of those goals and let the
military leaders handle the "how" of the campaigning.

And I find Sun Tzu still to be rather appropriate, despite the lapse of time
since he constructed his tenets. IIRC he described the theory behind
"blitzkreig" well before the German's formulated that operational/tactical
system, for example. From what I recall of reading Mao's "On Guerrella War"
a couple of decades ago, it owed heavily to the writings of Sun Tzu as well.
I have about three different translations of his work, but find Griffin's to
remain the best in terms of applicability to military matters.


The military doesn't set political goals, it's not its job and it
often lacks data on every aspects of the situation; it merely tries to
reach those set by the people's representatives, *at the time and
pace* set by those representatives. The politicians must always keep
an eye on the military's handling of the situation.

Of course. But that is a far stretch from involving themselves in
operational and tactical planning, IMO. Clemenceau's statement was much too
broad, or it has been taken that way incorrectly by most who have quoted it
over the decades since he made it.

Sometimes for the
best (Mac Arthur's intention to use nuclear devices in Korea or the
failed coup in Algeria come to mind), sometimes for the worst (as in
the case of the battle of Verdun in BUFDRVR'example, or the US
military efficiency in North Vietnam hampered by political
considerations). At least, that how it should work in a democracy and
everybody knows that it is "the worst form of government except for
all those others that have been tried".

We may be on the same sheet of paper but making our points in different
ways. IMO, the civilian leadership has to remain engaged with the strategic
components--not the operational or tactical components. MacArthur's
posturing regarding use of nuclear weapons, albeit in a supposed "tactical"
manner, crossed the line into strategic considerations, hence the wise
decision to reign in that talk by the civilian leadership. Nothing
inappropriate there, IMO.

Brooks


ArVa