http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HI30Ad01.html
Sep 30, 2006 


 
BOOK REVIEW
The relevance of Sun Tzu
The Art of War translated by John Minford

Reviewed by Dmitry Shlapentokh 


The classics are always worth reading. The Art of War by Sun Tzu certainly 
falls in this category, and this is apparently the reason it was republished 
recently in English. Sun Tzu's treatise is regarded as a classic of military 
science and seems to be especially appropriate reading for the English-speaking 
public at a time when the United States and its major European ally, Britain, 
have engaged in wars or are in preparation for new wars on many fronts. Indeed, 
Sun Tzu has become quite a popular author and is frequently quoted. 

Therefore, it is not accidental that when the general secretary of the Chinese 
Communist Party, Hu Jintao, visited the US, he gave the book to President 
George W Bush, as a hint on how the United States should deal with its numerous 
geopolitical challenges. Yet one could doubt that Sun Tzu's advice would be of 
use to a US administration, regardless of who sits in the White House. 

The message of the book is clear: war is won not through strength but through 
skillful manipulation - a victory of the writing brush and brains over sword 
and strength. This vision of war is related to another major point of the book, 
or at least can be interpreted in this way: war is not just the function of the 
military but is the exercise of the entire societal body. And it is here that 
the US military behemoth fails: America's socio-economic fabric as a whole is 
not designed to win the current wars, regardless of what seems to be enormous 
and constantly increasing investments in the country's military machine. 

Among Sun Tzu's profound ideas is the assumption that war cannot be victorious 
without a sense of solidarity between the elite and those who fight. He made it 
clear that generals and other officers should share the hardships and dangers 
of campaigns. The fact that officers lived like common soldiers would create 
the sense of solidarity and comradely spirit without which a war could not be 
won. In modern times, the spirit of solidarity should have much broader 
application, and soldiers should feel this solidarity not only with the 
officers but with the entire nation, which should share the hardships of war 
and provide adequate rewards for those who sacrifice themselves for the state. 

The opposite has happened at present in the US. Soldiers, even those who risk 
their lives on the battlefield, receive less for their years of service than 
prosperous lawyers, managers or bankers do in a few days. If a soldier is 
disabled, the state tries to minimize the expenses of his medical treatment, 
and his pension will often be barely enough to pay for heating his home. In 
fact, he may be thrown on the street like any other "fellow American". (Throngs 
of homeless ex-soldiers can be found in many US cities.) And if he dies on the 
battlefield, his surviving family not only will receive quite meager 
remuneration by US standards but also will not have health coverage. 

It is clear that this sort of arrangement, despite the profusion of flag-waving 
and patriotic statements on television, has bred a mercenary mentality where 
the spirit of sacrifice, without which no war could be won, especially a war 
that might last for generations, is practically absent. One can wonder why this 
could not be changed. Reading Sun Tzu would provide the answer. 

The inability to make changes is certainly not a result of naivety or because 
good advisers, with the Sun Tzu book in their hands, are not around the 
president's court. The army is an integral part of society as a whole, and this 
is one of the basic premises of Sun Tzu's holistic approach to society as a 
whole. A profound change in the spirit of the armed forces would require the 
same profound changes in US society. 

An army of well-paid and well-cared-for troops whose attachment to the cause 
transcends the limits of a mercenary paycheck cannot be created by flag-waving 
statements that "united we stand" and propaganda shows where selected brave 
servicemen and -women announce to TV viewers that they are thankful for the 
honor given to them: to fight and, if need be, die for the defense of liberty. 
The creation of armies whose soldiers are ready for a war that could last for 
generations requires a dramatic increase in benefits and remuneration for those 
who fight and for their immediate families. 

This would require a massive redistribution of wealth. It would mean the end of 
the perks of various societal bodies irrespective of whether they are supported 
by the left or the right, and, of course, massive intervention by the state in 
all aspects of life. This society, if it were to emerge, would come to resemble 
Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or China - or at least the Oriental monarchies such 
as the one in which Sun Tzu lived. 

Of course no arguments or even problems most Americans would see as manageable 
would be able to push the United States away from the operational model by 
which it has lived throughout most of its history. Change at the very core of 
society would need not just tolerable discomfort but massive and acute pain, 
which would demonstrate the futility of all the old medicine. 

Such an abrupt change in paradigms would require a global crisis, which might 
not happen because the collapse of the US economy and geopolitical/military 
machine would not just be a disaster for the US but might send tsunami-type 
waves all over the globe. The majority of America's global adversaries - China, 
for example - would try their best to prevent US society, including its 
socio-economic and even military structure, from collapsing like the Twin 
Towers on September 11, 2001. 

Because of this, the elite of US society would most likely operate more or less 
in the same paradigmatic framework, regardless of who occupies the White House. 
And for this reason the behemoth of the US military machine and society in 
general would be slowly worn down, regardless of the future occupants of White 
House and innumerable billions of dollars invested in more and more expensive 
and exotic military gadgets. 

A geopolitical retreat, manageable and gradual if possible - and this is a 
desirable scenario for most of the rest of the global community - would create 
a vacuum that could well be at least partly filled by the country from which 
Sun Tzu came - China. 

The Art of War by Sun Tzu, translated by John Minford. New York: Penguin, 2006, 
ISBN 0143037528. US$8.95, 101 pages. 

Dmitry Shlapentokh, PhD, is associate professor of history at the College of 
Liberal Arts and Sciences, Indiana University South Bend. He is author of East 
Against West: The First Encounter - The Life of Themistocles, 2005. 

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us 
about sales, syndication and republishing .)





  




  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Post message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe   :  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe :  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
List owner  :  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage    :  http://proletar.8m.com/ 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/proletar/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
    mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Kirim email ke