The West should engage these texts not only to better understand China, but also ourselves. The continuous strife and uncertainty of the Warring States period propelled the great thinkers of that age to develop far reaching analyses of fundamental issues facing societies of all eras and cultures. Those writers sparked debates that deal with universal issues about human nature, governance, and warfare…None of this means that Eastern thinking should replace Western thought in our own professional military education institutions, but being able to identify, contrast, and synthesize alternate viewpoints remains vital to strategic success.
Interpreting Sun Tzu: The Art of Failure?
Given the scarcity of authoritative writings or clarifying analyses on Sun Tzu’s text, how confident should we be that we have correctly grasped “the Way” of this ancient sage? Of particular importance, one of the core ideas we almost universally believe serves as a bedrock to Sun Tzu’s overall military philosophy—that his ideal strategic objective is “to take the enemy whole and intact”—rests on a problematic and potentially untenable textual foundation.
Siege Mentality: A Tale of Two Wus
It is time to break Sun Tzu’s stranglehold over the study of ancient Chinese strategic thought and military theory in general. Our fixation with this lone text deafens us to the other voices in a great debate that first raged millennia ago and continues unabated. As two scholars of this formative period in China helpfully remind us, “The ancient texts were not talking to us, they were arguing with each other.” It would be helpful, therefore, to put more effort into understanding the contours of these arguments. Sun Tzu’s contemporary relevance can only be properly assessed by first comparing and contrasting him with other military thinkers of his own age, rather than racing to pit his writings against those of a nineteenth century Prussian.
Sun Tzu’s Fighting Words
These twin issues of ambiguous translation and lack of historical context combine to create an environment ripe for distortion. Nowhere is this problem more prevalent than in our amorphous belief that Sun Tzu emphasized non-violent competition through the iconic goal of winning without fighting. A close examination of the actual terminology used in The Art of War, coupled with an examination of the historical record supporting the text’s meaning, suggests that while engaging in pitched battles was certainly discouraged, killing the enemy in combat was far from a disfavored practice.
Who was Sun Tzu’s Napoleon?
We know that Thucydides was not only the chronicler, but a general in the Peloponnesian War, Julius Caesar the architect of the Gallic War, and Machiavelli an active participant in Florentine diplomatic and martial affairs. Maurice de Saxe waded through the bloody fields of Malplaquet and Fontenoy, while both Jomini and Clausewitz kept their own formative experiences fighting in the Napoleonic Wars firmly in mind as they composed their respective theoretical works. But what motivated Sun Tzu (or its anonymous authors) to compose The Art of War? What were its historical precedents?
Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic
The mischaracterization of Sun Tzu as a metonymy for all Chinese strategic wisdom, past, present, and future, grossly distorts the text’s importance and provides unrealistic expectations of what The Art of War can reasonably offer the modern strategist. Moreover, it leads to a myopic view of current Chinese strategic thinking.
#Reviewing The Hundred-Year Marathon: Running on Flimsy Historical Grounds
The premise of Michael Pillsbury’s controversial book is alarming yet straightforward. Western strategic thinkers have been the victims of a massive deception campaign perpetrated by a group of Chinese hardliners who have convinced the West that China’s intentions are benign, but who are, in fact, driven by one overriding goal, to overthrow the U.S. as the world’s sole superpower. If this conjures up images of a thriller from the pen of Dan Brown, it may be the intent of the author.
#Reviewing a New Sun Tzu Translation: Is There Any Blood Left in This Old Stone?
Rather than piling on more translations, we would be better served by exerting greater effort reevaluating the text in a manner that recognizes that many of its arguments were based on unique historical factors which may not directly apply to modern strategic thought yet allows for the identification of carefully derived tenets which still maintain their relevance. Establishing a more judicious interpretation of The Art of War is a worthwhile and achievable goal, but we must be willing to follow the circuitous route to reach it.
