Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
If violence is never the answer to anything, then why have we Humans fought all those wars since the dawn of our existence?
Since STS seems to delight in opposing every debate point that I make, then I challenge STS to show historical factual proof that each and every war the Human Race has engaged in since History has been recorded could have been avoided in a peaceful manner to the satisfactory outcome of each and every party involved.
I am sure that the real Sun Tzu (the inventor of warfare tactics that are still in use as of this day) would be very interested in having that little tidbit of knowledge.
I don't think every war was avoidable or unnecessary. That is a false impression of the opposition I take to our current wars. But I could certainly list off several dozen conflicts that merely the US was involved in that it either should have sat out and not fought, as they are wasteful or purposeless conflicts for which we gained or protected no vital interests, or the underlying dispute could have been resolved peaceably much more cheaply (1812, Mexican, Spanish, WW1, Vietnam, 2nd Iraq, Afghanistan post 2003, Grenada, Panama, Libya, Lebanon, etc…. ). Wars and violence are sometimes the answer. Note for instance I did not list the revolutionary war, Civil War, or WW2, as these I would argue are at least debatable to their necessity if not actually necessary, and certainly have benefits to the parties involved over the long arc of history that did not accrue in the other conflicts listed (what benefit was there to fighting WW1, for anyone involved, as an example?). Most of the time however violence is a failure of politics and diplomacy and a waste of men, material, and money.
As far as Sun Tzu's military elements, he's a master of military STRATEGY, not tactics. There's a huge difference. Alexander the Great was an inventor of tactics (echelon attack maneuvers, flanking strikes, etc). Sun Tzu was a strategist. And he also said quite directly that the greatest generals win by not fighting at all ("For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill"). If you can defeat your enemy without giving battle, you win far greater than if you must deplete both armies and people, of both sides.
Where it is necessary to fight, you should be ready to do so. Where it is unnecessary to fight, it is a waste of the army and the general. Picking your battles and the ground for them is an essential part of Sun Tzu's thinking ("He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious.") and that implies that if you can win with merely using diplomacy or money/trade, or by outmaneuvering the enemy and breaking his will to fight and resist without committing to battles, then do these things. Actual wars should be quick, decisive, and fought for just ends, or don't do them at all.
So yes, I'm sure he would be interested in having that tidbit of knowledge, as he's one of the first to recognize it. If he lacked it, he wouldn't have recorded it in his treatise on generalship. Try reading Sun Tzu sometime before you presume to know what he said. He's not nearly as belligerent as you want him to be.
"Attack that which cannot be defended, defend that which cannot be attacked"
That doesn't sound like it helps you to prove that, by opposition to your original question, that every war must have been necessary either. Most of them are not. Wars and violence for purpose is not why humans fought all those wars.