The FIVE LEVELs of Sun Tzu
SUNTZUDO FACEBOOK
BOOKS AT
AMAZON.COM
SMASHWORDS.COM
1. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.
2. Baulk the enemy's plans
3. Then prevent the junction of the enemy's forces
4. Next attack the enemy's army in the field
5. Last, avoid besieging walled cities.
After reading the Art of War many, many times, it becomes crystal clear that Sun Tzu does not believe ‘carved in stone’ certainties exist. When he says that as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions, he seems to contradict an earlier statement that war is governed by five constant factors: The Moral Law; Heaven; Earth; The Commander; Method and discipline. In fact he does not, it is seemingly conflicting comments like these that challenge readers to understand the messages he left for us.
Understanding not water but its nature is the key to unlocking many of these and other seemingly contradictory messages. Water is water, the nature of water is a complex concept. As water can change its form from liquid to ice or steam, an army or force must also be able to change its form relative to its surrounding conditions. Water adjusts to its container, be the container a ditch in the road or a finely crafted crystal jug. So too, must a general adjust to the situation or container, he is dealing with. He must base his decisions on what is, not on what he would prefer the situation to be. Sun Tzu believed that he, who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven- born captain.
The toughest of rock is defeated by water. In the lands of ice and fire, water shows the way by adjusting to the circumstances so even the most formidable defences will be defeated. In summer, water enters a crack in a rock, expands its mass when frozen in winter and so expands the crack. The following summer more water enters the enlarged crack, meaning when the water freezes, the crack once again is made larger by the expansion of the freezing water. Thus over time, water defeats the toughest rock. By accommodating itself to the conditions, the water uses the smallest and simplest of opportunities to defeat the rock.
There is nothing permanent except change wrote Heraclitus. Heraclitus (c.535- c.475 BCE) and Sun Tzu ( circa 544-496 BCE), men from different countries, languages and cultures, however contemporaries of the same time period of history, agree on this. Heraclitus is more direct in how he says it. This permanence applies to laws as well. The characteristics of laws are very similar to those of water.
No law is permanent. Laws can be changed, ignored, bent, broken, misunderstood, misused and abused. This does not make the laws irrelevant, good, bad or anything else. Good relevant laws can be poorly applied and bad laws can be used wisely to gain a desired outcome. Just don’t make the error of blaming a law when the desired outcome is not achieved. Laws are only as good as those making and enforcing them.
There are two types of laws, universal and man-made. Universal laws are written to explain nature and the nature of things we don’t understand. Man-made laws are written to reflect values and enforce a desired behaviour. Laws, both man-made and universal, reflect perceptions or understandings at the time they came into being.
There is a huge difference between a law and its application. Geneva, July 27, 1929 saw the signing of the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, to come into force on 19 June 1931. Just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Since this time, the Convention has regularly been bent, broken, misused, abused and mostly ignored. A good and just law proven to be largely meaningless because of the inability for it to be enforced.
Universal laws
These laws explain the essential nature of things and because they deal with the essential nature of things, they only change to reflect a new, better or deeper understanding. English physician and mathematician Isaac Newton did not discover the existence of gravity in the 1680s. He was the first to develop and write about his improved understanding of the nature of gravity. Gravity is gravity, it has existed for as long as the Earth. It is a singular entity but changes its form, strength and effect depending on its location in the universe. The ‘law of gravity’ is codified in regards of its effects that can be measured and its nature better understood. The law is only changed when something new is discovered or revealed, gravity itself though has not changed.
This understanding becomes the tool to manipulate, defy and defeat gravity. For any aircraft to fly, especially one that weights up to 320t, gravity must be understood so it can be manipulated, defied and so defeated. Gravity as a singular entity does not change, its effects do. The effect of gravity changes vastly the further you rise from ground level. The law of gravity is written to demonstrate the perception and understanding of this variation and other variations. As the understanding of gravity grows, so does the perception and the law is rewritten to incorporate the changes in understanding and perception, even if that new understanding is flawed or wrong.
To fully understand the universal laws of gravity, friction, lift, aerodynamics and other natural forces we need to write down what we know or understand as laws so others can benefit from this information. Having ideas written down and circulated creates the opportunity that many other can apply their talents to furthering the understanding and application of the laws or knowledge.
None of these universal forces or entities operate in a vacuum from other universal forces like friction and aerodynamics. So there is the need to understand how they affect each other and this too must be written down as a law so it can be understood by others. Defeating one does not automatically mean the defeat of another. Many scientists discover the accumulation of understanding is usually easier than the application of the understanding accumulated. It is one thing to know, it is something else to do.
History shows us that many commanders knew of the Four Laws of Sun Tzu, very few could use them successfully. To master one is not to master them all. To master one does not mean you no longer have need of the other three. To master all four makes a very formidable commander indeed.
Man-made laws
Man-made Laws reflect the values and expected behaviour of both individuals and groups in a society. The adherence to these laws by the populace brings about harmony and prosperity for the society overall, not necessarily to every individual. Sad but true. From Communism to Socialism, Capitalism to all types of civilizations in-between, laws brought harmony and prosperity as a whole but not to all individuals.
While some man-made laws have survived eons, i.e. Thou shalt not kill, they have seen many variations. These laws are not ‘carved in stone’, they are forever changing, disappearing only to reappear in a different form in a different era.
When man-made laws are in harmony with natural laws, the benefits are great and long lasting. When they are made in violation of natural laws, disaster usually follows. In chapter seven, Maneuvering, Sun Tzu writes down a wise military maxim, known the world over, it is a military axiom not to advance uphill against the enemy, nor to oppose him when he comes downhill. The maxim refers to the laws of gravity, aerodynamics, motion and drag and possibly stupidity. Amazing as he had no inkling that any such laws could exist. By using common sense, listening to the experiences of those who went before him and his own, he found it necessary to record such a simple but important concept. Those on the high ground have a huge advantage over those below. This is just one of many instances of what happens when natural laws are not followed, regardless whether they were opposed by ignorance or choice.
3. Then prevent the junction of the enemy's forces
4. Next attack the enemy's army in the field
5. Last, avoid besieging walled cities.
After reading the Art of War many, many times, it becomes crystal clear that Sun Tzu does not believe ‘carved in stone’ certainties exist. When he says that as water retains no constant shape, so in warfare there are no constant conditions, he seems to contradict an earlier statement that war is governed by five constant factors: The Moral Law; Heaven; Earth; The Commander; Method and discipline. In fact he does not, it is seemingly conflicting comments like these that challenge readers to understand the messages he left for us.
Understanding not water but its nature is the key to unlocking many of these and other seemingly contradictory messages. Water is water, the nature of water is a complex concept. As water can change its form from liquid to ice or steam, an army or force must also be able to change its form relative to its surrounding conditions. Water adjusts to its container, be the container a ditch in the road or a finely crafted crystal jug. So too, must a general adjust to the situation or container, he is dealing with. He must base his decisions on what is, not on what he would prefer the situation to be. Sun Tzu believed that he, who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven- born captain.
The toughest of rock is defeated by water. In the lands of ice and fire, water shows the way by adjusting to the circumstances so even the most formidable defences will be defeated. In summer, water enters a crack in a rock, expands its mass when frozen in winter and so expands the crack. The following summer more water enters the enlarged crack, meaning when the water freezes, the crack once again is made larger by the expansion of the freezing water. Thus over time, water defeats the toughest rock. By accommodating itself to the conditions, the water uses the smallest and simplest of opportunities to defeat the rock.
There is nothing permanent except change wrote Heraclitus. Heraclitus (c.535- c.475 BCE) and Sun Tzu ( circa 544-496 BCE), men from different countries, languages and cultures, however contemporaries of the same time period of history, agree on this. Heraclitus is more direct in how he says it. This permanence applies to laws as well. The characteristics of laws are very similar to those of water.
No law is permanent. Laws can be changed, ignored, bent, broken, misunderstood, misused and abused. This does not make the laws irrelevant, good, bad or anything else. Good relevant laws can be poorly applied and bad laws can be used wisely to gain a desired outcome. Just don’t make the error of blaming a law when the desired outcome is not achieved. Laws are only as good as those making and enforcing them.
There are two types of laws, universal and man-made. Universal laws are written to explain nature and the nature of things we don’t understand. Man-made laws are written to reflect values and enforce a desired behaviour. Laws, both man-made and universal, reflect perceptions or understandings at the time they came into being.
There is a huge difference between a law and its application. Geneva, July 27, 1929 saw the signing of the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, to come into force on 19 June 1931. Just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Since this time, the Convention has regularly been bent, broken, misused, abused and mostly ignored. A good and just law proven to be largely meaningless because of the inability for it to be enforced.
Universal laws
These laws explain the essential nature of things and because they deal with the essential nature of things, they only change to reflect a new, better or deeper understanding. English physician and mathematician Isaac Newton did not discover the existence of gravity in the 1680s. He was the first to develop and write about his improved understanding of the nature of gravity. Gravity is gravity, it has existed for as long as the Earth. It is a singular entity but changes its form, strength and effect depending on its location in the universe. The ‘law of gravity’ is codified in regards of its effects that can be measured and its nature better understood. The law is only changed when something new is discovered or revealed, gravity itself though has not changed.
This understanding becomes the tool to manipulate, defy and defeat gravity. For any aircraft to fly, especially one that weights up to 320t, gravity must be understood so it can be manipulated, defied and so defeated. Gravity as a singular entity does not change, its effects do. The effect of gravity changes vastly the further you rise from ground level. The law of gravity is written to demonstrate the perception and understanding of this variation and other variations. As the understanding of gravity grows, so does the perception and the law is rewritten to incorporate the changes in understanding and perception, even if that new understanding is flawed or wrong.
To fully understand the universal laws of gravity, friction, lift, aerodynamics and other natural forces we need to write down what we know or understand as laws so others can benefit from this information. Having ideas written down and circulated creates the opportunity that many other can apply their talents to furthering the understanding and application of the laws or knowledge.
None of these universal forces or entities operate in a vacuum from other universal forces like friction and aerodynamics. So there is the need to understand how they affect each other and this too must be written down as a law so it can be understood by others. Defeating one does not automatically mean the defeat of another. Many scientists discover the accumulation of understanding is usually easier than the application of the understanding accumulated. It is one thing to know, it is something else to do.
History shows us that many commanders knew of the Four Laws of Sun Tzu, very few could use them successfully. To master one is not to master them all. To master one does not mean you no longer have need of the other three. To master all four makes a very formidable commander indeed.
Man-made laws
Man-made Laws reflect the values and expected behaviour of both individuals and groups in a society. The adherence to these laws by the populace brings about harmony and prosperity for the society overall, not necessarily to every individual. Sad but true. From Communism to Socialism, Capitalism to all types of civilizations in-between, laws brought harmony and prosperity as a whole but not to all individuals.
While some man-made laws have survived eons, i.e. Thou shalt not kill, they have seen many variations. These laws are not ‘carved in stone’, they are forever changing, disappearing only to reappear in a different form in a different era.
When man-made laws are in harmony with natural laws, the benefits are great and long lasting. When they are made in violation of natural laws, disaster usually follows. In chapter seven, Maneuvering, Sun Tzu writes down a wise military maxim, known the world over, it is a military axiom not to advance uphill against the enemy, nor to oppose him when he comes downhill. The maxim refers to the laws of gravity, aerodynamics, motion and drag and possibly stupidity. Amazing as he had no inkling that any such laws could exist. By using common sense, listening to the experiences of those who went before him and his own, he found it necessary to record such a simple but important concept. Those on the high ground have a huge advantage over those below. This is just one of many instances of what happens when natural laws are not followed, regardless whether they were opposed by ignorance or choice.
Sun Tzu’s First Law: Baulk the enemy's plans
Imagine you are a newly crowned king and your kingdom is a complete mess. Your government is chaotic, your people disunited and the army is a state needing a complete overhaul of training men and officers. Over your lifetime you have watched the borders of your country shrink slowly but surely every year. In short, all the signs depict your reign being a very short one and your kingdom facing annihilation. What do you do?
The only option you have is to delay and interfere with the plans of your enemies or your greatest immediate threat. You turn to Sun Tzus first law – baulk the enemys plans.
Your kingdom despite the chaos is a rich one, your greatest strength is your greatest weakness. Its richness is why the surrounding kingdoms plan to invade, it is also the key to fending off these threats. It is for this reason, you decide against forming an alliance with another kingdom for the result is probably akin to inviting a fox into the henhouse. Besides this, Sun Tzu is not a fan of forming alliances and this action probably rates with sieges, so something to be avoided.
The answers lay in the information or intelligence your spies bring you. Of all your defensive weapons, you know this is one you can rely on. Their information is always accurate and thus reliable. This information is also as timely as it is accurate. So you study the enemy that poses the greatest and most imminent danger.
They tell you, the attacking army is greater in number, better armed, resourced and disciplined. Their commanders are intelligent and experienced. In short, any kind of battle with this force is folly and a disaster just waiting to happen. What do you do?
Your spies also inform you about the customs of the kingdom that is preparing to attack you in numbers you cannot defeat. There are two customs that stand out in your mind. The first is that if a member of the royal family dies, the kingdom spends the next year in a state of mourning. A year in which all government comes to a standstill and the population abstain from all celebrations and entertainment. A year in which all military activity is halted.
The second piece of information is the only son is impatient to become king. He is suspected of arranging the deaths of his four older brothers, all in accidents of course.
The first step is to delay the invasion by a year. Have someone convince the prince to arrange an accident for his grandfather or some other royal that will trigger the year of mourning, the same kind of accident like he arranged for his brothers. Failing this you bribe one of the grandfathers’ body guard to end the life of the grandfather or royal. By these means you now have a year to improve your situation.
Next is to turn an enemy into an ally, especially if they are unaware of the changing relationship. By funding the princess ambition to become king, an internal war is planned during the year of mourning and is launched the day after the period of mourning ends. The internal revolt achieves three ends. First, it delays any invasion. Two, it empties the coffers of the state and three, it reduces the numbers of fighters and soldiers of the kingdom. A possible fourth outcome is that the kingdom becomes war weary. It is one thing to cheer the troops on while they are fighting in someone elses’ land but it is another thing to witness it up close and personal.
Internal revolts can rage for years if the revolutionaries are well funded and well directed. In this light, it makes sense to either bribe on of the kings generals to defect to the prince. Attempting to bribe the generals to support the prince should only be made after attempting them to join your army or to retire to a life of comfort and riches in your kingdom. Should these offers fail, then attempt to influence their loyalty to their king. The desired outcome of this strategy is to weaken the king and strengthen your forces or those of the prince. Should this fail, pay for some of the best mercenaries to guide the prince and train his soldiers. Fighting with gold instead of steal is as effective if not more so, but it does not mean less blood will be spilt.
While baulking and interfering with the plans of your enemies, you rebuild your defences and army because you still don’t know if your enemy will still attack. So, as Sun Tzu advised you make your position as unassailable as possible in case the enemy still comes. Part of making your position unassailable means entering trade or other alliances with other surrounding states. If there is a state on the other side of the aggressive kingdom, you could enter a treaty of mutual-protection. This means if one kingdom is attacked the state on the other side will attack, forcing the aggressive state to fight a war on two borders, effectively breaking his army in two. Such a treaty is easier to make if the kingdom in the middle is caught up in an internal war.
The last tactic of this strategy is building up your army and all other defences, such as walls of cities or building outposts that will slow the advance of an invading army. The Romans understood how the building of all-weather roads is a great defensive act because they could move troops and supplies with great speed to wherever they were needed.
In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. Fighting with gold and not steel is an indirect method of fighting. By weakening your enemy, you strengthen your own. This strength is a weapon in and of itself.
So much for fiction, let us turn to a couple of true historical examples of how a commander can win by interfering with the plans of their enemies.
The Athenians had lost the war against their lasting foe, the Spartans. In punishment and as a tactical move the Spartans ordered the main defence of Athens, its wall, to be raised to the ground.
To enact the desire of the Spartans, the Lacedaemonians had commanded the Athenians to tear down their walls. In defiance, Themistocles (527 BC - 459 BC) urged his fellow citizens to rebuild the walls with great speed. Athens’ greatest enemy, the Spartans, informed of Themistocles’ action by the Lacedaemonians sent word of their displeasure. Themistocles informed the Spartan envoys that he would go to Sparta and answer the lies of the Lacedaemonians.
On arrival in Sparta, he feigned illness and gained a considerable delay. This tactic could not last long enough for the walls to be rebuilt so Themistocles challenged the Spartans to send some of their own trusted men to Athens and so receive their own trusted reports of building activities in his home city. This the Spartans did, they sent a group of their own to settle the matter.
Themistocles, in secret arranged for a letter to arrive before the Spartan delegation. This letter ordered the Athenians to arrest or detain the Spartans until they had rebuilt the fortified wall. When faced with news of the detainment of the Spartan envoys, Themistocles advised the Spartans their men would not be released until the wall was finished and himself returned to Athens in good health. The Spartans agreed to his terms, not wanting to lose so many of their own for just one Athenian. Themistocles achieved his outcome and victory.
Aulus Manlius (died before 216 BC), wintering in Campania discovered that his soldiers conspired to slaughter their hosts and loot their assets. Outnumbered he could not confront his troops directly but action was desperately needed to stop such an appalling action. Not only did he want to stop this slaughter, Aulus Manlius truly wanted to properly punish the conspirators.
In order to accomplish both outcomes, he circulated a report that all would have to return and occupy the same quarters next season. By doing so, he removed the threat to his hosts, the Campanians and when the situation allowed, he did properly punish those guilty of planning and promoting the slaughter.
So much for ancient examples, now for a modern example of baulking the plans of the enemy.
During the 1990s, a desperate war existed between two types of businesses. The prey were cash poor, asset rich companies and the predators were cashed up corporations looking for any mean to increase their dividends to investors and their shareholders. The cashed up corporations would hunt for the cash poor, asset rich companies. When identified, the corporations would launch takeover bids to gain ownership, sometimes these takeover bids would become hostile if the companies sought to avoid the takeover. Most of the companies would fight to the bitter end because they knew the corporations would sell off the assets to make their profit and let the company die.
To avoid the death by corporation, companies would restructure allowing the board members to insert what became known as a ‘poison pill’. What Is a Poison Pill? Poison pills significantly raise the cost of acquisitions and decrease each shares voting power, thus creating huge disincentives and deter such attempts completely.
Such plans allow current shareholders the right to purchase additional shares at a huge discount, effectively diluting the ownership interest of any new, hostile party.
The poison pill mechanism is aimed at avoiding the change of control or company management. Implementing a poison pill may not always indicate that the company is not willing to be acquired but may desire a higher valuation and/or more favourable terms in the acquisition outcome.
Types of Poison Pills
Flip-In Poison Pill
Flip-in poison pill is a type of strategy in which existing shareholders, not acquiring shareholders, can purchase shares at such a discount that dilutes the value of the shares to point where the takeover loses its value or advantage.
Voting Poison Pill Plan
An anti-takeover strategy in which the company being targeted for a takeover issues securities that provide special voting rights to current shareholders and not acquiring shareholders. This tactic ensures that control of the targeted company is protected. Even if the raider buys enough ‘ordinary’ shares to own the company, they fail to gain control because they cannot buy any of the shares with voting privileges that hold the key to controlling the company.
Suicide Pill
A suicide pill is a defensive strategy by which a company trying to prevent a hostile takeover adopts measures that drive itself to bankruptcy.
Poison Put
A poison put is a takeover defence strategy in which the target company issues a bond that investors can redeem before its maturity date.
In 2012 Netflix adopted a Poison Pill to fend off Karl Icahn from a hostile takeover. Learning that Icahn had acquired a 10% stake in the company, Netflix immediately created a poison pill. The poison pill stipulated that with any new acquisition of 10% or more, any Netflix merger or Netflix sales or transfers of more than 50% of assets without board approval, existing shareholders can purchase two shares for the price of one. This act of adopting a poison pill effectively stopped the takeover attempt by Karl Icahn
One concept that a reader needs to understand to fully appreciate the depth of this law, is the concept of the direct and indirect attack. This law mainly and most effectively lives in the indirect attack. It is a concept of positioning where the creators of force to maximize their effect when let loose. Chess players who can think ten moves ahead are the classic example, they slowly move their pieces into position, first to nullify their opposition and secondly to launch an attack from the best possible position on the chess board. Block the plans, no matter how small. Even small interruptions can put off the timing of an attack so a defence can be made.
The hardest part of this law is that it applies primarily to actions before the battle, not after the fighting begins. The fight always starts long before the battle is seen. Too many only want to apply the lessons of Sun Tzu after the battle erupts. They don’t understand or can’t understand that the fight begins far in advance of any actual battles. This part of strategy and tactics control the intangibles of war, that which cannot be seen. It deals with forces not strengths. Forces are manipulated to magnify the force of your numbers, while dissipating the forces generated by the numbers and positioning of your enemy. It is the controlling of the unseen to defeat that which can be seen.
Image if you could change the minds of all those you disagree with, or change the behaviour of all those who annoy you without saying word, or without any form of conflict at all. How good a superpower is that? This is our challenge today, no swords but no angry words either. No deaths or hurt feelings or severed friendships. To avoid fights, arguments and other forms of conflict before fighting or arguing begins. This is personal level of applying the first law of Sun Tzu.
The only option you have is to delay and interfere with the plans of your enemies or your greatest immediate threat. You turn to Sun Tzus first law – baulk the enemys plans.
Your kingdom despite the chaos is a rich one, your greatest strength is your greatest weakness. Its richness is why the surrounding kingdoms plan to invade, it is also the key to fending off these threats. It is for this reason, you decide against forming an alliance with another kingdom for the result is probably akin to inviting a fox into the henhouse. Besides this, Sun Tzu is not a fan of forming alliances and this action probably rates with sieges, so something to be avoided.
The answers lay in the information or intelligence your spies bring you. Of all your defensive weapons, you know this is one you can rely on. Their information is always accurate and thus reliable. This information is also as timely as it is accurate. So you study the enemy that poses the greatest and most imminent danger.
They tell you, the attacking army is greater in number, better armed, resourced and disciplined. Their commanders are intelligent and experienced. In short, any kind of battle with this force is folly and a disaster just waiting to happen. What do you do?
Your spies also inform you about the customs of the kingdom that is preparing to attack you in numbers you cannot defeat. There are two customs that stand out in your mind. The first is that if a member of the royal family dies, the kingdom spends the next year in a state of mourning. A year in which all government comes to a standstill and the population abstain from all celebrations and entertainment. A year in which all military activity is halted.
The second piece of information is the only son is impatient to become king. He is suspected of arranging the deaths of his four older brothers, all in accidents of course.
The first step is to delay the invasion by a year. Have someone convince the prince to arrange an accident for his grandfather or some other royal that will trigger the year of mourning, the same kind of accident like he arranged for his brothers. Failing this you bribe one of the grandfathers’ body guard to end the life of the grandfather or royal. By these means you now have a year to improve your situation.
Next is to turn an enemy into an ally, especially if they are unaware of the changing relationship. By funding the princess ambition to become king, an internal war is planned during the year of mourning and is launched the day after the period of mourning ends. The internal revolt achieves three ends. First, it delays any invasion. Two, it empties the coffers of the state and three, it reduces the numbers of fighters and soldiers of the kingdom. A possible fourth outcome is that the kingdom becomes war weary. It is one thing to cheer the troops on while they are fighting in someone elses’ land but it is another thing to witness it up close and personal.
Internal revolts can rage for years if the revolutionaries are well funded and well directed. In this light, it makes sense to either bribe on of the kings generals to defect to the prince. Attempting to bribe the generals to support the prince should only be made after attempting them to join your army or to retire to a life of comfort and riches in your kingdom. Should these offers fail, then attempt to influence their loyalty to their king. The desired outcome of this strategy is to weaken the king and strengthen your forces or those of the prince. Should this fail, pay for some of the best mercenaries to guide the prince and train his soldiers. Fighting with gold instead of steal is as effective if not more so, but it does not mean less blood will be spilt.
While baulking and interfering with the plans of your enemies, you rebuild your defences and army because you still don’t know if your enemy will still attack. So, as Sun Tzu advised you make your position as unassailable as possible in case the enemy still comes. Part of making your position unassailable means entering trade or other alliances with other surrounding states. If there is a state on the other side of the aggressive kingdom, you could enter a treaty of mutual-protection. This means if one kingdom is attacked the state on the other side will attack, forcing the aggressive state to fight a war on two borders, effectively breaking his army in two. Such a treaty is easier to make if the kingdom in the middle is caught up in an internal war.
The last tactic of this strategy is building up your army and all other defences, such as walls of cities or building outposts that will slow the advance of an invading army. The Romans understood how the building of all-weather roads is a great defensive act because they could move troops and supplies with great speed to wherever they were needed.
In all fighting, the direct method may be used for joining battle, but indirect methods will be needed in order to secure victory. Fighting with gold and not steel is an indirect method of fighting. By weakening your enemy, you strengthen your own. This strength is a weapon in and of itself.
So much for fiction, let us turn to a couple of true historical examples of how a commander can win by interfering with the plans of their enemies.
The Athenians had lost the war against their lasting foe, the Spartans. In punishment and as a tactical move the Spartans ordered the main defence of Athens, its wall, to be raised to the ground.
To enact the desire of the Spartans, the Lacedaemonians had commanded the Athenians to tear down their walls. In defiance, Themistocles (527 BC - 459 BC) urged his fellow citizens to rebuild the walls with great speed. Athens’ greatest enemy, the Spartans, informed of Themistocles’ action by the Lacedaemonians sent word of their displeasure. Themistocles informed the Spartan envoys that he would go to Sparta and answer the lies of the Lacedaemonians.
On arrival in Sparta, he feigned illness and gained a considerable delay. This tactic could not last long enough for the walls to be rebuilt so Themistocles challenged the Spartans to send some of their own trusted men to Athens and so receive their own trusted reports of building activities in his home city. This the Spartans did, they sent a group of their own to settle the matter.
Themistocles, in secret arranged for a letter to arrive before the Spartan delegation. This letter ordered the Athenians to arrest or detain the Spartans until they had rebuilt the fortified wall. When faced with news of the detainment of the Spartan envoys, Themistocles advised the Spartans their men would not be released until the wall was finished and himself returned to Athens in good health. The Spartans agreed to his terms, not wanting to lose so many of their own for just one Athenian. Themistocles achieved his outcome and victory.
Aulus Manlius (died before 216 BC), wintering in Campania discovered that his soldiers conspired to slaughter their hosts and loot their assets. Outnumbered he could not confront his troops directly but action was desperately needed to stop such an appalling action. Not only did he want to stop this slaughter, Aulus Manlius truly wanted to properly punish the conspirators.
In order to accomplish both outcomes, he circulated a report that all would have to return and occupy the same quarters next season. By doing so, he removed the threat to his hosts, the Campanians and when the situation allowed, he did properly punish those guilty of planning and promoting the slaughter.
So much for ancient examples, now for a modern example of baulking the plans of the enemy.
During the 1990s, a desperate war existed between two types of businesses. The prey were cash poor, asset rich companies and the predators were cashed up corporations looking for any mean to increase their dividends to investors and their shareholders. The cashed up corporations would hunt for the cash poor, asset rich companies. When identified, the corporations would launch takeover bids to gain ownership, sometimes these takeover bids would become hostile if the companies sought to avoid the takeover. Most of the companies would fight to the bitter end because they knew the corporations would sell off the assets to make their profit and let the company die.
To avoid the death by corporation, companies would restructure allowing the board members to insert what became known as a ‘poison pill’. What Is a Poison Pill? Poison pills significantly raise the cost of acquisitions and decrease each shares voting power, thus creating huge disincentives and deter such attempts completely.
Such plans allow current shareholders the right to purchase additional shares at a huge discount, effectively diluting the ownership interest of any new, hostile party.
The poison pill mechanism is aimed at avoiding the change of control or company management. Implementing a poison pill may not always indicate that the company is not willing to be acquired but may desire a higher valuation and/or more favourable terms in the acquisition outcome.
Types of Poison Pills
Flip-In Poison Pill
Flip-in poison pill is a type of strategy in which existing shareholders, not acquiring shareholders, can purchase shares at such a discount that dilutes the value of the shares to point where the takeover loses its value or advantage.
Voting Poison Pill Plan
An anti-takeover strategy in which the company being targeted for a takeover issues securities that provide special voting rights to current shareholders and not acquiring shareholders. This tactic ensures that control of the targeted company is protected. Even if the raider buys enough ‘ordinary’ shares to own the company, they fail to gain control because they cannot buy any of the shares with voting privileges that hold the key to controlling the company.
Suicide Pill
A suicide pill is a defensive strategy by which a company trying to prevent a hostile takeover adopts measures that drive itself to bankruptcy.
Poison Put
A poison put is a takeover defence strategy in which the target company issues a bond that investors can redeem before its maturity date.
In 2012 Netflix adopted a Poison Pill to fend off Karl Icahn from a hostile takeover. Learning that Icahn had acquired a 10% stake in the company, Netflix immediately created a poison pill. The poison pill stipulated that with any new acquisition of 10% or more, any Netflix merger or Netflix sales or transfers of more than 50% of assets without board approval, existing shareholders can purchase two shares for the price of one. This act of adopting a poison pill effectively stopped the takeover attempt by Karl Icahn
One concept that a reader needs to understand to fully appreciate the depth of this law, is the concept of the direct and indirect attack. This law mainly and most effectively lives in the indirect attack. It is a concept of positioning where the creators of force to maximize their effect when let loose. Chess players who can think ten moves ahead are the classic example, they slowly move their pieces into position, first to nullify their opposition and secondly to launch an attack from the best possible position on the chess board. Block the plans, no matter how small. Even small interruptions can put off the timing of an attack so a defence can be made.
The hardest part of this law is that it applies primarily to actions before the battle, not after the fighting begins. The fight always starts long before the battle is seen. Too many only want to apply the lessons of Sun Tzu after the battle erupts. They don’t understand or can’t understand that the fight begins far in advance of any actual battles. This part of strategy and tactics control the intangibles of war, that which cannot be seen. It deals with forces not strengths. Forces are manipulated to magnify the force of your numbers, while dissipating the forces generated by the numbers and positioning of your enemy. It is the controlling of the unseen to defeat that which can be seen.
Image if you could change the minds of all those you disagree with, or change the behaviour of all those who annoy you without saying word, or without any form of conflict at all. How good a superpower is that? This is our challenge today, no swords but no angry words either. No deaths or hurt feelings or severed friendships. To avoid fights, arguments and other forms of conflict before fighting or arguing begins. This is personal level of applying the first law of Sun Tzu.
Sun Tzu’s Second Law: Prevent the junction of the enemy's forces
The third law comes into effect after failing to baulk the enemys plans and preventing the junction of their forces. A question presents itself here, if you arrive at this point, have you failed? Is it because you were not good enough in applying the first two laws that now you face battle in the field? The answer is maybe but not necessarily. In some cases you face an enemy that wants or craves battle above all else. In such cases, nothing you can do will prevent a battle. All you can do is weaken such an enemy as much as possible and carefully pick the time and place of battle.
Sun Tzu is not a pacifist, he is a realist. While his first aim is to avoid battle, not surrender or meekly give way to enemies, he acknowledges that some battles are unavoidable. In regard to this reality, Sun Tzu gives us two chapters, one on Terrain and the other on the varieties of ground. In his time, you would read the contents of the chapters literally, we of course should not. We do not fight our battles in fields on horseback or on foot using swords and spears, our battlefields now range from the boardrooms to classrooms to dining rooms. To gain any advantage we need to use some imagination, to adapt not his words but his meaning and theories to our reality in the boardrooms, classrooms and dining rooms.
Sun Tzu distinguishes six kinds of terrain, (1) Accessible ground; (2) entangling ground; (3) temporizing ground; (4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous heights; (6) positions at a great distance from the enemy and recognizes nine varieties of ground: (1) Dispersive ground; (2) facile ground; (3) contentious ground; (4) open ground; (5) ground of intersecting highways; (6) serious ground; (7) difficult ground; (8) hemmed-in ground; (9) desperate ground.
His maxim in chapter ten, the natural formation of the country is the soldier's best ally; but a power of estimating the adversary, of controlling the forces of victory, and of shrewdly calculating difficulties, dangers and distances, constitutes the test of a great general gives us his overall philosophy in this regard. Only by understanding the situation or the terrain or the varieties of ground will a commander formulate a winning strategy.
When Sun Tzu uses the terms terrain and varieties of ground, we translate them to mean situations. This is not as much of a stretch as one may originally believe it to be. When we understand that the six kinds of terrain and nine varieties of ground relate to situations, then we can understand them, predict them and prepare solutions that are to relevant such situations, terrain and varieties of ground. With his clarification of these situations, he then gives us information on how to act in these situations. He gives us a framework to assist us to know if we should retreat, pause, fight or use stratagem to achieve our goals.
When Gaius Pinarius (1st century AD) commanded the Roman garrison of Henna in Sicily, he faced a very dangerous and delicate situation. The magistrates representing the inhabitants of Henna, the Ennaeans had decided to renounce the alliance of the Romans and demanded the keys of the gates. Pinarius realized this was not the time to fight. Accordingly he informed the magistrates that if Ennaeans assemble the next day and pass a decree that sanctions the revolt he will obey such a decree and hand over the keys to the gates. This is a timely point to remind the reader to remember what Sun Tzu says in his opening to the Art of War and later about knowing your enemy.
The next day the Ennaeans did assemble and pass such a decree expecting Pinarius to honour it. Instead, to their horror the found out that Pinarius had no such intention. He had achieved his goal of having all those wanting to rebel to amass in one location. On his command, the Roman garrison strategically placed let fly with their javelins and other missiles killing many of the Ennaeans. They followed up this attack with drawn swords and wiped out those who wanted to revolt. Very few Ennaeans escaped the carnage.
Pinarius found himself in ‘hemmed-in ground’ (ground which is reached through narrow gorges, and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths, so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men), he could have handed over the keys and face the challenge of regaining control over Henna. According to the advice of Sun Tzu, he used stratagem to defeat the threat, thus retaining control of the city. Gaius Pinarius could not avoid the fight, however he could and did choose both the battle ground and the time of the battle.
Manius Curius (died 270 BC) knowing he would soon engage in battle with the phalanx of King Pyrrhus. After observation and consideration, he concluded that his men could not be resist the phalanx when in extended order. To counter this advantage of his enemy, he decided to fight in confined quarters, where the phalanx, being massed together, would lose its effectiveness. Again, like Gaius Pinarius, Manius Curius could not avoid battle so he chose to focus on what he could control, the battle ground and his tactics. In effect, he turned ‘temporizing ground’ (when the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move) into a ‘narrow pass’, which he fully garrisoned in preparation for the attack of King Pyrrhus.
Ventidius, one of Julius Caesar's protégés, when he no longer had any influence of where or when the battle would take place resorted to tactics to gain victory. In one battle against the Parthians, he chose not to attack with his soldiers until the Parthians were within five hundred paces. The Parthians archers were lethally accurate and in numbers inflicted large casualties upon attacking soldiers. To counter this dire threat, he would let them come within five hundred paces and then with an unexpected charge, his soldiers would quickly cross the death ground, escaping the deadly arrows and engage the Parthians in close quarter combat. The effect of his tactic unnerved the Parthians and Ventidius quickly subdued them. Thus by a rapid advance to engage them at close quarters, he escaped their arrows, which they shoot from a distance. By this scheme exhibiting a great show of confidence and bravery, he quickly subdued the barbarians
Sun Tzu defines ground which is reached through narrow gorges, and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths, so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men as hemmed-in ground. The part of this definition that applied to Ventidius’ situation is ‘a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body’. This is the threat of the archers, The Parthian archers with their accuracy would inflict great injuries to the soldiers of Ventidius. Should his attack fail, not only would his men have to advance into this lethal hemmed-in ground, they would have to retreat by this avenue. His solution to this threat has stood the test of time, it is a modern battle tactic that if ambushed or soldiers find themselves under attack without any suitable cover or protection, then they advance as quickly as possible through and beyond the killing ground and engage the enemy at close quarters.
The last instance we will consider of ancient generals dealing with not being able to avoid battle or chose the battlefield is Cleomenes, that Spartan. Cleomenes, the Spartan (520-490 BC), decided in his battle against Hippias, the Athenian (527-510 BC), that his enemys’ main strength was his cavalry. In accordance with this decision and his logical aim to reduce or deny any advantage of his enemy, he ordered his men to chop down as many trees as required, then randomly spread them about the field of the coming battle. This simple action negated the advantage Hippias held with his cavalry, horses cannot attack at speed on battlefield littered with tree trunks.
There are two points in chapter eleven that are applicable to the tactic of Cleomenes. All battlegrounds are contentious ground, ground the possession of which imports great advantage to either side, is contentious ground. If only because whoever controls the specific battleground wins the battle. The second maxim relates to the use of cavalry. Open ground is ground on which each side has liberty of movement. Nothing defines open ground like the images of a huge number of cavalry charging over an open meadow or similarly flat, uncluttered ground.
Cleomenes imposed his will on Hippias by changing the nature of the battlefield by using indirect tactics. Sun Tzu tells us that direct method are used for joining battle but indirect tactics are needed to secure victory. Dumping trees on the battleground is the indirect tactic to improve the chances of victory for Cleomenes.
Attacking your enemy on the field of battle is a risky business as there are so many variables and unknowns. We all have experienced how life can change from the great to the miserable in an instant. On a battlefield this speed of change not only can mean the difference between victory and defeat but between life and death.
Mahatma Gandhi born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) is an inspirational figure for those seeking independence and motivates movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. This man was born into the British colony of India and like his compatriots craved to free his country from the British colonial rule.
The key to understanding Gandhis’ stratagem is to see his war was at a national not a personal level. This is explained by Sun Tzu as Accessible Ground, ground that can be freely traversed by both sides, both Indian and British. The strategy he prescribes for this type of ground is ‘With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage’. To this end, he employed nonviolent civil disobedience tactics.
Gandhi knew the Indians could not win an armed conflict against the British so he invented a new weapon, nonviolent civil disobedience. These tactics could be used in many and diverse areas, from a general strike to a sit-in to interrupt key and important British activities. He brilliantly brought to life this maxim from chapter six of the Art of War. If we do not wish to fight, we can prevent the enemy from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw something odd and unaccountable in his way.
No power had ever encountered this new and unsettling tactic. If the British used violence against peaceful protesters, they risked the backlash of the international community and empowering this movement with emotional support of the international community. Gandhi won the support of the international community and India achieved independence from the United Kingdom on 15 August 1947
Gandhi called his movement as Satyagraha, which means "appeal to, insistence on, or reliance on the Truth". The essence of Satyagraha is a "soul force" as a political means, refusing to use brute force against the oppressor, instead seeking to eliminate antagonisms between the oppressor and the oppressed. A euphemism sometimes used for Satyagraha is that it is a "silent force" or a "soul force"
Gandhi used force against strength. This is the ‘odd and unaccountable’ thing the British faced and were defeated by. Satyagraha is now used all over the world by protesters who may never have heard its name or the name of its modern day creator. For police to remove the peaceful protesters means the use of strength which never looks good on the television or video online.
Sun Tzu is not a pacifist, he is a realist. While his first aim is to avoid battle, not surrender or meekly give way to enemies, he acknowledges that some battles are unavoidable. In regard to this reality, Sun Tzu gives us two chapters, one on Terrain and the other on the varieties of ground. In his time, you would read the contents of the chapters literally, we of course should not. We do not fight our battles in fields on horseback or on foot using swords and spears, our battlefields now range from the boardrooms to classrooms to dining rooms. To gain any advantage we need to use some imagination, to adapt not his words but his meaning and theories to our reality in the boardrooms, classrooms and dining rooms.
Sun Tzu distinguishes six kinds of terrain, (1) Accessible ground; (2) entangling ground; (3) temporizing ground; (4) narrow passes; (5) precipitous heights; (6) positions at a great distance from the enemy and recognizes nine varieties of ground: (1) Dispersive ground; (2) facile ground; (3) contentious ground; (4) open ground; (5) ground of intersecting highways; (6) serious ground; (7) difficult ground; (8) hemmed-in ground; (9) desperate ground.
His maxim in chapter ten, the natural formation of the country is the soldier's best ally; but a power of estimating the adversary, of controlling the forces of victory, and of shrewdly calculating difficulties, dangers and distances, constitutes the test of a great general gives us his overall philosophy in this regard. Only by understanding the situation or the terrain or the varieties of ground will a commander formulate a winning strategy.
When Sun Tzu uses the terms terrain and varieties of ground, we translate them to mean situations. This is not as much of a stretch as one may originally believe it to be. When we understand that the six kinds of terrain and nine varieties of ground relate to situations, then we can understand them, predict them and prepare solutions that are to relevant such situations, terrain and varieties of ground. With his clarification of these situations, he then gives us information on how to act in these situations. He gives us a framework to assist us to know if we should retreat, pause, fight or use stratagem to achieve our goals.
When Gaius Pinarius (1st century AD) commanded the Roman garrison of Henna in Sicily, he faced a very dangerous and delicate situation. The magistrates representing the inhabitants of Henna, the Ennaeans had decided to renounce the alliance of the Romans and demanded the keys of the gates. Pinarius realized this was not the time to fight. Accordingly he informed the magistrates that if Ennaeans assemble the next day and pass a decree that sanctions the revolt he will obey such a decree and hand over the keys to the gates. This is a timely point to remind the reader to remember what Sun Tzu says in his opening to the Art of War and later about knowing your enemy.
The next day the Ennaeans did assemble and pass such a decree expecting Pinarius to honour it. Instead, to their horror the found out that Pinarius had no such intention. He had achieved his goal of having all those wanting to rebel to amass in one location. On his command, the Roman garrison strategically placed let fly with their javelins and other missiles killing many of the Ennaeans. They followed up this attack with drawn swords and wiped out those who wanted to revolt. Very few Ennaeans escaped the carnage.
Pinarius found himself in ‘hemmed-in ground’ (ground which is reached through narrow gorges, and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths, so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men), he could have handed over the keys and face the challenge of regaining control over Henna. According to the advice of Sun Tzu, he used stratagem to defeat the threat, thus retaining control of the city. Gaius Pinarius could not avoid the fight, however he could and did choose both the battle ground and the time of the battle.
Manius Curius (died 270 BC) knowing he would soon engage in battle with the phalanx of King Pyrrhus. After observation and consideration, he concluded that his men could not be resist the phalanx when in extended order. To counter this advantage of his enemy, he decided to fight in confined quarters, where the phalanx, being massed together, would lose its effectiveness. Again, like Gaius Pinarius, Manius Curius could not avoid battle so he chose to focus on what he could control, the battle ground and his tactics. In effect, he turned ‘temporizing ground’ (when the position is such that neither side will gain by making the first move) into a ‘narrow pass’, which he fully garrisoned in preparation for the attack of King Pyrrhus.
Ventidius, one of Julius Caesar's protégés, when he no longer had any influence of where or when the battle would take place resorted to tactics to gain victory. In one battle against the Parthians, he chose not to attack with his soldiers until the Parthians were within five hundred paces. The Parthians archers were lethally accurate and in numbers inflicted large casualties upon attacking soldiers. To counter this dire threat, he would let them come within five hundred paces and then with an unexpected charge, his soldiers would quickly cross the death ground, escaping the deadly arrows and engage the Parthians in close quarter combat. The effect of his tactic unnerved the Parthians and Ventidius quickly subdued them. Thus by a rapid advance to engage them at close quarters, he escaped their arrows, which they shoot from a distance. By this scheme exhibiting a great show of confidence and bravery, he quickly subdued the barbarians
Sun Tzu defines ground which is reached through narrow gorges, and from which we can only retire by tortuous paths, so that a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body of our men as hemmed-in ground. The part of this definition that applied to Ventidius’ situation is ‘a small number of the enemy would suffice to crush a large body’. This is the threat of the archers, The Parthian archers with their accuracy would inflict great injuries to the soldiers of Ventidius. Should his attack fail, not only would his men have to advance into this lethal hemmed-in ground, they would have to retreat by this avenue. His solution to this threat has stood the test of time, it is a modern battle tactic that if ambushed or soldiers find themselves under attack without any suitable cover or protection, then they advance as quickly as possible through and beyond the killing ground and engage the enemy at close quarters.
The last instance we will consider of ancient generals dealing with not being able to avoid battle or chose the battlefield is Cleomenes, that Spartan. Cleomenes, the Spartan (520-490 BC), decided in his battle against Hippias, the Athenian (527-510 BC), that his enemys’ main strength was his cavalry. In accordance with this decision and his logical aim to reduce or deny any advantage of his enemy, he ordered his men to chop down as many trees as required, then randomly spread them about the field of the coming battle. This simple action negated the advantage Hippias held with his cavalry, horses cannot attack at speed on battlefield littered with tree trunks.
There are two points in chapter eleven that are applicable to the tactic of Cleomenes. All battlegrounds are contentious ground, ground the possession of which imports great advantage to either side, is contentious ground. If only because whoever controls the specific battleground wins the battle. The second maxim relates to the use of cavalry. Open ground is ground on which each side has liberty of movement. Nothing defines open ground like the images of a huge number of cavalry charging over an open meadow or similarly flat, uncluttered ground.
Cleomenes imposed his will on Hippias by changing the nature of the battlefield by using indirect tactics. Sun Tzu tells us that direct method are used for joining battle but indirect tactics are needed to secure victory. Dumping trees on the battleground is the indirect tactic to improve the chances of victory for Cleomenes.
Attacking your enemy on the field of battle is a risky business as there are so many variables and unknowns. We all have experienced how life can change from the great to the miserable in an instant. On a battlefield this speed of change not only can mean the difference between victory and defeat but between life and death.
Mahatma Gandhi born Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) is an inspirational figure for those seeking independence and motivates movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. This man was born into the British colony of India and like his compatriots craved to free his country from the British colonial rule.
The key to understanding Gandhis’ stratagem is to see his war was at a national not a personal level. This is explained by Sun Tzu as Accessible Ground, ground that can be freely traversed by both sides, both Indian and British. The strategy he prescribes for this type of ground is ‘With regard to ground of this nature, be before the enemy in occupying the raised and sunny spots, and carefully guard your line of supplies. Then you will be able to fight with advantage’. To this end, he employed nonviolent civil disobedience tactics.
Gandhi knew the Indians could not win an armed conflict against the British so he invented a new weapon, nonviolent civil disobedience. These tactics could be used in many and diverse areas, from a general strike to a sit-in to interrupt key and important British activities. He brilliantly brought to life this maxim from chapter six of the Art of War. If we do not wish to fight, we can prevent the enemy from engaging us even though the lines of our encampment be merely traced out on the ground. All we need do is to throw something odd and unaccountable in his way.
No power had ever encountered this new and unsettling tactic. If the British used violence against peaceful protesters, they risked the backlash of the international community and empowering this movement with emotional support of the international community. Gandhi won the support of the international community and India achieved independence from the United Kingdom on 15 August 1947
Gandhi called his movement as Satyagraha, which means "appeal to, insistence on, or reliance on the Truth". The essence of Satyagraha is a "soul force" as a political means, refusing to use brute force against the oppressor, instead seeking to eliminate antagonisms between the oppressor and the oppressed. A euphemism sometimes used for Satyagraha is that it is a "silent force" or a "soul force"
Gandhi used force against strength. This is the ‘odd and unaccountable’ thing the British faced and were defeated by. Satyagraha is now used all over the world by protesters who may never have heard its name or the name of its modern day creator. For police to remove the peaceful protesters means the use of strength which never looks good on the television or video online.
Sun Tzu’s Fourth Law: Avoid besieging walled cities.
The key to understanding this fourth law is understanding what a siege is. A siege is not only a huge army attacking a stone walled castle. A siege can take many forms like a standoff, impasse, deadlock, bottleneck, or a stalemate. There are three costs that must be considered in regards to a siege or standoff. Contesting, waiting and avoiding. The least costly should be avoiding.
In the Art of War, Sun Tzu only talks about his reality of an army trying to take a walled city or castle. He says besieging walled cities is the most expensive and costly form of conflict in finances and other resources. It is costly in how many can die from a siege, both directly in the fighting and secondly, indirectly from the ensuing poverty and diseases that occur during sieges. Sextus Julius Frontinus writes in his book, Strategemata of this siege story. The story goes that the inhabitants of Casilinum, when blockaded by Hannibal, suffered such shortage of food that a mouse was sold for two hundred denarii, and that the man who sold it died of starvation, while the purchaser lived. If you are being besieged, the local costs rise to intolerable and disastrous levels. If you are the besieger, the cost of transporting the necessary tools and food will empty the treasure chest.
Not all sieges are limited to one army surrounding a walled city and other similar physical examples. There are other sieges on much greater scales and are more intangible in their appearance. By understanding the essential points of a siege, we can apply them to a much wider range of real life instances.
HAMAS-ISRAEL
When Hamas was founded in 1987, an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and designated by the USA as a terrorist group, a siege was triggered that is ongoing today. Co-founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin stated in 1987, and the Hamas Charter affirmed in 1988, that Hamas was founded to liberate Palestine, including modern-day Israel, from Israeli occupation and to establish an Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In short, the aim of Hamas is to push Israel into the sea and replace it with an Islamic state. The military wing of Hamas continually attacks Israel. Their tactics include suicide bombings and rocket attacks. Hamas's rockets are mainly short-range homemade but also include long-range weapons that have reached Israeli cities like Tel Aviv and Haifa.
In 1947, the United Nations (UN) adopted a Partition Plan for Palestine recommending the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states and an internationalized Jerusalem. The plan, unsurprisingly, was accepted by the Jewish Agency, and rejected by Arab leaders. The State of Israel, is a country in Western Asia, located on the south-eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea and the northern shore of the Red Sea. It has land borders with Lebanon to the north, Syria to the northeast, Jordan on the east, the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza Strip to the east and west, respectively, and Egypt to the southwest. In 1948, Israel declared its independence which triggered the first Arab–Israeli War. In subsequent wars, Israel gained control over the highly contentious areas of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
This conflict is a siege as neither party has any intention to go away, how could they? This is a dispute over imposing a religious belief over a specific landmass. For decades there was only an intangible line on the ground, however beginning in 1994, Israel has built actual concrete walls to separate the two combatants in highly dangerous and volatile areas. This conflict will continue while either side exists. In the time of Sun Tzu, Israel would have had the option of invading the contested land and put an end to the ongoing bloodshed. This is no longer an option. To date there is no viable solution to end this stalemate and it appears that this conflict will last for a very long time.
COLD WAR
Along similar lines, the greatest siege in history involved the two nuclear superpowers, USA and the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). The two nations were separated by the 82 kilometres (51 miles) wide Bering Strait. The Soviet Union was the world's largest country, crossing 11 time zones. The Soviet Union bordered Afghanistan, China, Czechoslovakia, Finland, Hungary, Iran, Mongolia, North Korea, Norway, Poland, Romania, and Turkey from 1945 to 1991.
The Cold War began in 1945 and was declared over in 1991 with the fall of the USSR. The cold war was an ideological battle between the USSR communist system of government and the American capitalist system of government. The west was led by the United States and Eastern Europe was led by the Soviet Union. Both sides were held in check by a threat referred to as MAD, mutually assured destruction. Both sides built enough nuclear weapons that no matter who fired the first shot, the whole world would to an end as we know it. The ultimate lose-lose standoff. As there was no actual declaration of war, the conflict between the two forces became known as the ‘Cold War’.
Just because there was no declaration of war did not mean the two forces did not face each other on a battlefield. They did so in what is called proxy wars. The proxy war consists of side backing and supporting whoever the other side is attacking, fighting or supporting in a conflict.
Even though it was deemed a Cold War, the soldiers of both sides actually faced off in battle. The Soviets supported North Korea in its war against South Korea (1950 – 1953). Soviet pilots in soviet fighter jets engaged American pilots in American fighter jets that had lethal outcomes. The forces again faced off in the Viet Nam War from the late 1950s until the fall of Saigon in 1973. The China and the Soviets supported the Communist north and the Americans supported the southern half of the country. The Yom Kippur War, Ramadan War, or October War also known as the 1973 Arab–Israeli War, was a war fought by a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria against Israel. Another classic proxy war between the two giants. The USSR supported the Arab coalition and the Americans backed the Israelis. This was the briefest of all the proxy wars.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, the Americans supplied war munitions to the local war lords to repel the Soviets. The Soviet–Afghan War lasted over nine years, from December 1979 to February 1989. There is belief that the Americans supplied specialist and Special Forces troops to help train the Afghanis to fight as well as how to use the FIM-92 Stinger (Man-Portable Air-Defense System).
In line with the words written 2,500 years ago, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain, the USSR collapsed and the Cold War was declared over.
The reality of sieges is still with us, so the observations of Sun Tzu are still relevant. From November 4, 1979, to January 20, 1981, fifty-two American diplomats and citizens were held hostage for 444 days, after a group of Iranian college students belonging to the Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line seized the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. This is the longest hostage crisis in recorded history. Jimmy Carter did approve of attempts to rescue the hostages however, one of the attempts, Operation Eagle Claw saw American troops die in its failure, and the humiliating public debacle that followed, damaged his reputation and the prestige of the U.S. worldwide. Many believed it cost Jimmy Carter re-election as President of America in 1980.
THE BATTLE OF MARAWI
In May 2017, Islamist insurgents swarmed through the city of Marawi, taking the population of 200,000 hostage and announcing it as a new ‘Capitol’ for Islamic State in South-East Asia. The Battle of Marawi, the longest urban battle in the modern history of the Philippines, had begun. This massive, unprecedented hostile city takeover and siege triggered a five-month-long armed conflict between Philippine government security forces and militants affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), including the Maute and Abu Sayyaf Salafi jihadist groups in the Mindanao region of the Southern Philippines. The battle was waged against a well-resourced, sophisticated enemy who had the ‘home ground advantage’. Extensive preparations had been conducted throughout the city and an intense, protracted and close-quarters battle became the only way to destroy the enemy and recapture the city.
Most who read the Art of War fail to grasp how it affects them on a daily basis. How could the Fourth Law of Sun Tzu touch us in our daily lives? Imagine, while walking to work, you pop in for a fresh cup of coffee, tea or whatever you drink in the morning. Two minutes later, you are a hostage in a siege that lasts two days. Fiction? No. this is the reality that faced those caught up in the Battle of Marawi in 2017 and those who went for coffee before work in 2014.
LINDT CAFÉ SIEGE
The Sydney hostage crisis, a siege, occurred on 15–16 December 2014 when, of a Lindt chocolate café in the APA Building in Martin Place in Sydney, Australia. Everyday people like you and me went into a shop to by a sweet or coffee on their way to work only to be taken hostage by an irrational individual. Their lives would never be the same after spending days wondering if they would be shot or released. How could they? The police eventually rushed the besieger and two hostages died. While the chance of this happening to us is remote, it is now a real threat to consider when not at home.
‘SHUT UP’ SIEGES
Bringing this all down to a personal level are the ‘Shut Up’ sieges. These occur when someone wants to say something and another person who opposes that view will shout you down. Every time you start to talk, they talk, only louder and when you stop, they don’t. Another form of siege protest is the Occupy Movement. The individuals of these protests believe they have the right to disrupt the lives of others and even their opportunity to earn an income to pay their bills, even if they have never met them. It either does not bother them or they believe it is still okay to do this to others who might actually support or share their grievance but are caught up in their protest getting to or from work or simply going about their business.
Then you have the short lived but highly visible stage invaders. This is an increasing problem to political leaders the world over. Protesters believe they have the ‘right’ to invade the space and assembly of those who they disagree with in order to shut them up, even for a short time. In doing so they also aim to get as much media coverage as possible. The most despicable feature of the tactics by these protesters is that they bring very young children to their battles and put the children in danger to protect or extend their time of protest.
The most vile of these modern day siege variations is the ‘name calling’. If someone calls you a racist or worse, you are in an undefendable position or siege. One the accusation is made, there will be those, of a like mind, that will believe it. Even if the accusation has no evidence or cause. How do you prove you are not? For those who believe it, there is no evidence to they will believe to clear your name, character or reputation. The cost involved is immense and in some cases fatal, as the accused at times will commit suicide. Teenagers around the world have done so after being ‘fat shamed’ or ‘slut shamed’. These vulnerable youths do not have the defenses to survive such a siege. The siege morphs from the physical to the emotional and then mental. The castle is utterly destroyed. Sun Tzu states many times that this is no victory in any sense of the word.
The Art of War is a classic example of the warning, your greatest strength is your greatest weakness. The simplicity of the thirteen chapters means it can be read in a very short time. Maxims can be memorized very quickly. However it is this very simplicity that is its great strength and at the same time. it greatest weakness.
To use it effectively, key words must be identified and explored to understand the message or wisdom of each maxim. Then the maxims must be joined to deepen the wisdom so they can be properly applied.
The Four Laws of Sun Tzu is just a beginning of a very long, complex yet rewarding journey.
To use it effectively, key words must be identified and explored to understand the message or wisdom of each maxim. Then the maxims must be joined to deepen the wisdom so they can be properly applied.
The Four Laws of Sun Tzu is just a beginning of a very long, complex yet rewarding journey.
Click to set custom HTML