[dead]
Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
131–140 of 211 posts
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#132People who are interested in famous historic works on warfare strategy may be better served with "On War" by Clausewitz, a Prussian general.
+1: This one has great contributions, including the well-known quote "War is a continuation of politics by other means". Some things that are very relevant and not in Sun Tzu:
- Importance of reserves: troops that enter fight instantly become an order of magnitude more complicated to manoeuver. Thus it's important to keep ~half your forces in reserve. This one was forgotten by French general Gamelin at the beginning of WWII => thus when the German attack through Sedan pierced the French front unexpectedly fast, only weak troops were left to stop them in front of Paris.
- How to use terrain to your advantage: for instance put non-crossable obstacles behind you, or difficult terrains / slopes in front of you so that enemies waste effort and organization in crossing through while your troops are rested waiting for them when they emerge.
- How to place troops in classical battles: why cavalry often goes on the sides.
- Importance of pre and post-battle actions, for instance pursuit after routing the enemy.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#133Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
They're not, really. The way that you advise the president on military issues is you give them prepackaged "decisions" that are limited variations on the same choice. The president's authority over the military is a legal fiction much like many other legal fictions that keep the system going.
> The president's authority over the military is a legal fiction
Having served in the US Navy, this statement could not be more wrong. All command authority is delegated from the President, full stop.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy I think modern democracies do a much better job of separating military and civilian leadership than dictatorships do. Putin seems to be too personally involved in micromanaging his war, insisting on conquests that are simply not poss…
> And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked. That makes it sound as if Putin attacked because an opportunity presented itself. I don't think that's why he attacked. I think he attacked because he felt he had no choice. Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rum…
Of course he has a choice. "Not having a choice" is just his own excuse for the choice he made. He could have continued trading with the EU while investing in the development of Russia, but that takes actual work and isn't glamorous. (Not to mention that much of that investment would probably be eaten by corruption.)
I think he saw a rapidly closing window of opportunity. A successful Ukraine would be a threat to his own rule over Russia, because there are a lot of ties between Russians and Ukrainians, and Russians would notice if a more EU-aligned Ukraine is more prosperous than Putin-ruled Russia, and that would undermine Putin's story of saving Russia's economy (which he did, between 2000 and 2008).
With increasingly closer ties between Ukraine and NATO, and Ukraine possibly even joining at some point, he has to take advantage of the fact that Ukraine wasn't in NATO yet. And NATO didn't respond to him taking land from Georgia in 2008, and the Crimea in 2014, so he figured they wouldn't do anything this time either. Besides, he'd invested a lot of effort into dividing the EU and NATO: funding extreme-right-wing parties all over Europe, supporting Trump, supporting Brexit, all things that seemed to make the EU and NATO weaker. But he vastly overestimated our weakness and his own strength.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#135As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good ones have done their homework, but it's not their profession in the end.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#136As both a former army officer as well as someone who appreciates historical Chinese, it pains me to say that I found it underwhelming. I’m not saying that any one on here is like this, but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy. Unlike everyone I know who has actually served .
> but in my experience it def attracts a certain type who, among other things, have a zero sum, “business is war” mindset that’s a tad creepy
Now, I haven't come across people quoting Sun Tzu in my career, but I know the type of person you're talking about.
They are the type to either stick around short-term as execs, just a couple years, or to escape with a golden parachute when things start to turn. Un-surprisingly, their accomplishments are often enough detrimental to the customers, the business or both. They are aggressive, but don't really have much skin in the game.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sun Tzu's work was aimed at nobled who had zero experience and knowledge in warfare; a lot of it is low-hanging fruit, but you have to build up the basis for these things like "make sure your soldiers have food" and "don't tell your opponent what you're up to" in these people. It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. I'm sure they have good advisors and the good one…
> It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. Simple: the founders of the US thought it would protect our democracy to ensure that a elected civilian was in charge of the military. It's mostly worked.
Isn't there an even simpler answer? Back then most countries had their king ad their top military commander and the president of the US had a very similar role to a king.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#138I’m not sure how Sun Tzu is complete garbage when his strategies were vague and often not specific, so you can adapt them according to the situation To me the problem is that the study of war, like the study of economics or any other social study; isn’t a real science. There is no repeatable theoretical model, including The Art of War. There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations.
> like the study of economics [...] There are no universal laws that always hold true in all situations I've got great news for you! There are universal economic laws that always hold true in all situations. For example, "man acts". You can't deny that, because denying it would be an act in itself, leading to a (performative) contradiction. From this law, and just a few others of a similar kind, you can build a whole…
this is how you get praxeology, right? Which works so well that it literally eschews the concept of testing one's ideas.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Modern militaries don't seem to enjoy the freedom to act and maneuver that a classic general enjoyed in the field (for good reasons). Modern requirements for transparency and democracy I think modern democracies do a much better job of separating military and civilian leadership than dictatorships do. Putin seems to be too personally involved in micromanaging his war, insisting on conquests that are simply not poss…
> And he believed the West to be weak (or at least divided and disorganised), so he attacked. That makes it sound as if Putin attacked because an opportunity presented itself. I don't think that's why he attacked. I think he attacked because he felt he had no choice. Not because NATO was crowding into his borderlands, which is Putin's story; but because following the collapse of Soviet communism and the USSR, the rum…
> That makes it sound as if Putin attacked because an opportunity presented itself.
The west still appeared to be disrupted by COVID. The US and allies sent mixed signals on Ukraine which were interpreted as the US and West will let nature take it's course. The opportunity was there for Putin, and he took it. Putin wasn't wrong. Evidence: Biden tried to evacuate Zelenskyy leading to the famous quote, "I don't need a ride, I need ammo." The surprise to everyone was Ukraine fighting back ferociously. Now, Putin needs to realize the window has closed, and it is time to stop the madness.
Re: Notes from a Sun Tzu Skeptic (2019)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's why I don't understand why in the US, the president is also the top military commander. Simple: the founders of the US thought it would protect our democracy to ensure that a elected civilian was in charge of the military. It's mostly worked.
Isn't there an even simpler answer? Back then most countries had their king ad their top military commander and the president of the US had a very similar role to a king.
> Isn't there an even simpler answer?
Nope. There's a lot of writing about this issue from various founding fathers. There was great desire to avoid the President appearing to be a king or turning into one.