عبقرية عسكرية!! .. فن الحرب فن الهجوم فن الدفاع فن التجسس فن قيادة الأفراد والموارد
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shD5C...

Now I'm ready to invade Poland
.
.
.
Okay, I understand that is not the kind of reaction Sun Tzu would have liked(best victories are won without fighting) but it makes a nice heading. His philosophy is simple - be good even if it means looking bad and to know your surroundings while you fight. He is against pretentious heroism, plunder or useless bloodshed whether that is blood of his own men or his opponents. Yet he wants you not to miss the opportunities where you can find them or to break the old moral laws where it is of advantage to you.

Not that I'm looking to lead an army or pretend that I can but there is something so honest in there that you just love it. Perhaps it is book's realism (as against the bookish morality) - something comparable to Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

Sun Tzu, general y estratega militar, concibió hace 2500 años uno de los más emblemáticos y atemporales tratados sobre el tema bélico. En este texto de singular brevedad pero implacable eficacia se nos exponen algunos de los principios elementales de la guerra destacándose nociones como aquella de que la mejor victoria es aquella que se da sin luchar.

Este resumen de sabiduría milenaria oriental reafirma su valía mediante el despliegue de un análisis que puede ser aplicado a los conflictos armados de la actualidad con capítulos claros, concisos, de fácil comprensión e ideas de inmensa efectividad. Su lectura es fluida y se percibe sorprendentemente actual.

Five stars ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ for "The Art"
One star ⭐ for "of War"

Average rating = ⭐⭐⭐

Seriously though, this is beautifully and artfully written. It's just too bad to have such poetry dedicated to effective ways of waging war.

Simply put, Sun Tzu says that it is better not to fight than to be involved in a conflict, but if you are going to have to fight, then you have to do it to win, and these are the various strategies, often brutal, that will get you that result.

Niccolò Machiavelli, in The Prince says if you are in a position of power and seek to maintain it, it is better to be loved and respected, but if you can't achieve that, then at least enforce respect and these are the, often brutal, strategies that will get that result.

I say, if you are going to be a politician in the generally-winning party and you don't like reading much, The Prince is for you. Very sly. If however you see yourself in opposition, arguing your point, try Sun Tzu first.

For the rest of us the books are short and make interesting historical and somewhat philosophical reading but they aren't going to change your life other than giving you a leg up on the intellectual book ladder, always a plus for the pseuds!
Who, me? Yah think...

'

someone change my name to George Washington
i'm becoming a general

We all know one person who has an answer for everything. This person is usually annoying and won’t accept that sometimes they’re just wrong; they won’t accept that at some point their logic may fail them and run dry; they’re completely resolute in what they believe and they just won’t budge from it: they simply can’t be proven wrong or at fault. This is how I feel about Sun Tzu. It’s like he interpreted questions and doubts before they were born, and countered them with his own logic based responses that felt immaculately persuasive to the point that I found them to be convincing truths. Sun Tzu, literally, has an answer for everything war based.

How to win at war



I could never consider war as a form of art, but Sun Tzu has provided a detailed manual of how to survive it. Well, at least if you’re a general in the command of legions of armies and have the ability to respond to a multitude of situations with the quick thinking advice of Sun Tzu. Then, and only then, might you be ok. If you’re a foot solider or a random underling, then you’re screwed because you’d most likely be spent in some well thought out attack or defensive manoeuvre. This book is certainly one for the generals who must consider victory first and overcome the loss of human life.

There’s a reason why this book is still read today by military leaders, soldiers and random bookworms; it provides valuable insight on how to master the battlefield; it advises the reader on how to respond, in the most effective manner, to a number of tactical situations. There is so much covered in this relatively small book that it’s quite surprising. However, despite the convincing nature of his arguments, I do feel like there would be a situation where his logic failed him. There will be a situation where an unforeseeable circumstance defeats his approach and leads in an unexpected defeat and complete rout. No manual of war could ever be completely extensive even if it appears that way. But, don’t tell Sun Tzu I said that because he’d have an answer.

Easy to read

One thing that struck me when reading this was the sheer approachability of it. I expected it to be very complex and intricate. The manoeuvres and counters are conveyed in a simple, yet comprehensive, manner. It undeniably makes war look easy, which it obviously isn’t. I’m not saying that it’s misleading, but I was just looking for a logic hole in here. I was unable to find one, though I think if someone used this in war they may find it. I am glad of the simplicity of it, though, because it made the book very approachable and easy to understand. I never thought I’d say this, but The Art of War is very light reading.

This was such an interesting book to read. I feel like I learnt a lot from it, which is quite scary really. Perhaps, I won’t read it a second time, as I don’t want to get to many ideas in my head. I do recommend giving this book a read though, just for the sake of reading something completely different.

A tactical three stars

n  
" الكـتاب المـقـدس للـدراسـات العـسكـرية "
n


خمسة وعشرون قرناً من الزمان ولا يزال كتاب " فن الحرب " من أهم وافضل الكتب الحربية والعسكرية ومازال من ضمن قائمة أهم مائة كتاب في التاريخ..


سن أتزو جعل من الحرب فناً ،خدعة ودهاء، تعليمات عسكرية صارمة وتكتيكات عبقرية وخطط ماكرة واقعية فذة، تفكير في أدق تفاصيل شؤون الحرب وإغتنام كافة السبل و الفرص المؤدية إلى النصر المؤزر في أي معركة بكيفية واقعية لا تخرج عن نطاق الممكن..


قد لا يهمه عدد الجنود في داخل المعركة ولا قوة العدو ولا نوع الأسلحة ولا التضاريس التي تجرى فيها المعارك..
سن أتزو يفكر في النصر في كل المعارك التي يخوضها بوسائل عبقرية ناضجة وخطط محكمة وبديهة سريعة ترافق الأستعداد الذهني والبدني وتجعل الجيش بكامله في أقصى درجات التحدي والأستعداد للمتغيرات والمفاجأت التي قد تحملها المعركة..


كتاب " فن الحرب " لا يقتصر فقط على شرح كيفية تحقيق الأنتصارات وإلحاق الهزيمة بالعدو فحسب، بل وحتى تجنب الهزيمة والوقوع في شرك العدو والأسر وخلافه..


عندما تقرأ الكتاب لا تشعر أن الكتاب قد كُتب منذ ذلك الزمن البعيد.. قيمة تاريخية وعسكرية لا مثيل لها، يمكن تطبق تعليماتها حتى في الوقت الحاضر رغم التقدم التقني والعسكري، ولكن مازالت نفس الطرق ونفس الأستراتيجيات والخطط تُستخدم من قبل القادة العسكريين ..


قد يقول قائل أن ماكتبه أتزو من البديهيات ومن الممكن أن تخطر تعاليمه وخططه على بال أي عسكري متمرس
نعم صحيح ولكن مع تلك الشمولية وتلك البصيرة الحادة والفكر الثاقب مع مراعاة الزمن الذي كُتب فيه الكتاب، لا أتصور حقيقة أن ماكتبه أتزو كان ضرباً من الحظ..


للمفارقة لم يكن أتزو من محبي الحرب ولم يكن يتصور الحرب كطريقة مُثلى لحل الخلافات، كان يرى أن الحوار والمفاوضات هي التي يجب أن تسود لحل المشاكل بين الدول والأمم�� ذكر ذلك صراحة في الكتاب رغم أنه كتاب للحرب وفنونه..
كان يرى أن النجاح الحقيقي في الحرب هو الفوز في معركة بدون خسائر من الطرفين ثم العمل على إحلال سلام مستديم قائم على المعاهدات والأتفاقيات الموثوق بها، ولكن كرر فيما بعد أن الحرب ضرورة في بعض الأحيان وشر لابد منه ..

Catching up on the classics #1

As I read this book battles from history flashed through my mind. There are so many instances when Sun Tzu’s wisdom rang true into modern times. From formations on various battlegrounds to treatment of troops his sage advice is certain to be followed today if only that would be the type of warfare in which we would deal. Sadly we now have nuclear bombs.

Now I was a senior manager for a number of years and walked the walk as well as talked the talk, I went on many training courses to learn management techniques and was even trained as a trainer for Stephen Covey as well as Tom Peters, so I am more than aware of these techniques, BUT I had never heard of Sun Tzu and apparently he is de rigeur now.
Well all I can say is its not a patch on Covey, I found it boring and somewhat unintelligible albeit interesting, but relevant to management techniques, what ??

(Reprinted from the Chicago Center for Literature and Photography [cclapcenter.com:]. I am the original author of this essay, as well as the owner of CCLaP; it is not being reprinted illegally here.)

The CCLaP 100: In which I read for the first time a hundred so-called "classics," then write essays on whether or not they deserve the label. The Art of War is essay #27 of this series.

The story in a nutshell:
More of a technical manual than a piece of general literature, The Art of War is a field guide of sorts by famed Chinese military leader Sun Tzu, written it's believed sometime in the 6th century BC (during the period when China was coming together as a unified empire for the first time in history), as a way of instructing other commanders how to have as much success on the battlefield as he had had. (And please know that there's a debate among scholars as well regarding whether Sun Tzu even wrote this book by himself, or if like many other classics from antiquity this isn't in fact a sly compilation, gathering up the best thoughts back then from amongst a whole group of military strategists.) Now of course let's not forget that Sun Tzu was a Taoist as well, so of course his particular advice is going to be Taoist in nature, a very important thing to understand in order to really "get" this book; he sees the best war, for example, as the one that's never actually fought, because you've already dismantled the enemy's forces through sabotage and cunning to the point where they can't put up a resistance in the first place. And so it is throughout this extremely slim book (which in fact is more like a long magazine article) -- chapter after chapter of surprisingly spiritual text concerning the fine art of getting what you want, even when other people are actively trying to stop you from doing so.

The argument for it being a classic:
It's a 2,500-year-old book still being read and studied on a daily basis, argue its fans; what more do you want? And in the meanwhile, it's influenced nearly every Western military leader since first being translated into a Romantic language (French) in 1782, racking up a whole list of self-declared admirers from Napoleon to Norman Schwarzkopf. And if this weren't enough, starting in the 1980s it also gained a whole new life as a surprisingly apt if not Machiavellian guide to the corporate business world, best typified by symbol-of-yuppie-greed Gordon Gekko from Oliver Stone's fantastic movie Wall Street, who is constantly walking around quoting from it as a way to justify his monstrous, inhuman actions. If all of this isn't enough to safely consider a book a classic, ask its fans, what is?

The argument against:
The case against this being a classic seems to be one used a lot with books over a thousand years old; that even if that book turns out to be historically important (and it usually does), it might be better at this point to actually study the book and how it affected society, not read the book itself for pleasure anymore. Always remember, that's part of how I'm defining "classic" here in this CCLaP 100 series, is not just how important that title has been to human history, but also whether it's worth literally sitting down and reading it page-for-page yourself, no matter if you have any specific interest in that book's subject or not. If it's yes on the former but no on the latter, as critics of this book claim, then by my definition it's not a classic, but rather simply a historically important book that should be studied by the general public but not necessarily read.

My verdict:
So let me start by admitting how surprisingly readable this is for being 2,500 years old, and that it really does translate metaphorically to the business world surprisingly elegantly; after all, since it's a guide to war written by a Taoist, it's more of a symbolic examination of how to get out of life what you want the most, even in the face of tough opposition, with advice that is surprisingly relevant to the modern world even when he's talking about the mechanics of medieval Asian warfare. (Just for one example, near the beginning he talks in one paragraph about how a successful commander will literally steal the food of their enemy, both to sap the enemy's strength and to avoid the burden of having to carry all that food to battle themselves; this may not seem to have much relevance to the modern business world at first, until you stop and think about it in terms of stealing talent from your competitors, literally the intellectual "food" nourishing their "army" of goods and services competing against your own.)

That said, though, I think ultimately I'm going to have to side with the critics this time; that unless you're a military commander or corporate raider yourself, most people's eyes are going to quickly gloss over while trying to read this book, merely after the first few pages. Now, don't get me wrong, I definitely think this should be a primer for people who are getting into the profession themselves; this should for sure be a must-read not only for soldiers, for example, but also the politicians in charge of those soldiers' budgets. But this is a perfect example of the surprisingly complicated process of determining whether a book is a classic or not, the entire reason I started this essay series in the first place; because unless competitive strategy actually is your business, most people will find it more rewarding to spend their time reading up on how this book has affected history, and of the circumstances in ancient China that led to it getting written in the first place. There's really only one major lesson in The Art of War for a non-military general audience to get -- that most battles are won based on how well one can surprise the enemy, usually by deceiving them using their own weaknesses (to act incompetent when the enemy is haughty, for example, threatening when they're meek, picking them off at the edges when they outnumber you, destroying their supply lines when they're far from home); for those not interested in the nitty-gritty of how to actually accomplish such things, though, there's actually a lot more to be learned by studying how such a thing has been attempted over the centuries, making the book certainly important but not necessarily a classic.

Is it a classic? No