Makers of Modern Strategy - Essay Example

The principles of war are Objective, Offensive, and Mass, Economy of Force, Maneuver, Unity of Command, Security, Surprise, and Simplicity. To what extent, if any, do Chinese views follow or depart from modern principles, and why?  Your opinions are welcome, but back them up with evidence.

Response

            Sun-Tzu was talking about strategy as contained in his book The Art of War.  The writing that says “the army is established by deceit, moves for advantage, and changes through segmenting and reuniting” must not be taken literally. Sun-Tzu was talking metaphorically.  By deceit, he meant the confidentiality and secrecy character of a military organization.  A military organization’s objective is to win war wars not to be honest.  Divulging one’s military capability blunts its capacity for the offensive.  One must not be “truthful” or “candid” about the status of its military otherwise the enemy would plan against it and could easily defeat it.  By “moves for advantage, and changes through segmenting and reuniting” just meant that a military organization adapts to a situation or its maneuverability by regrouping, and when he mentioned “its speed is like the wind, its slowness like the forest; its invasion and plundering like a fire; unmoving it is like the mountains. It is as difficult to know as the darkness; in movement, it is like thunder", Sun-Tzu merely described the offensive capability of a military organization through a unified command.

            These Chinese views about military tactics and strategies may sound ancient but are still actually present in today’s military tactics.  Sun-Tzu just talked the language of his day but he talked about the “classified nature of the military”, regrouping, organization, the timing of the attack, and the speedy response of military action.  Much of military strategy and tactics today are derived from the principles of Sun-Tzu so Sun-Tzu’s thoughts about tactics and strategies will always be present in military organizations today.

Discussion Topic 2

On January 21, 1955, military historian Michael Roberts delivered a lecture before the Queen's University of Belfast. Published as an article in 1956, "The Military Revolution, 1560–1660." His seminal article has fueled debate in historical circles ever since. Roberts's concept of a military revolution became "orthodoxy" in early modern military history and remained virtually unchallenged until Geoffrey Parker published his article "The `Military Revolution, 1560–1660'—A Myth?" Subsequent studies also failed to disprove Roberts's basic thesis. In 1988 Parker published The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800. In this volume, Parker poses the question that shaped the ensuing debate: How was the West—initially so small and deficient in most natural resources—able to overcome this situation through military and naval power and conquer global empires? The debate continues.

The concept of the Military Revolution is hugely important because nearly all the writings that documented the development of strategies and tactics developed in the Renaissance focus on the same principles of war the U.S. and other developed countries take for granted today.  Your review of the chapters in Paret should make this clear.

It is important, however, to think critically about such matters.  Consider our more recent experience in war, particularly since trends that have gained currency in the last decades of the 20th century and the opening of the 21st-century show that accepted principles may no longer be applicable. 

Please consider each of the nine principles and provide examples from your readings that demonstrate their validity.  Then, provide examples from recent conflicts that show they may be wrong.  Be prepared to defend your arguments if your classmates don't agree with you, and I hope not all of them will.  Remember, no fighting in class!  We can argue politely but we won't come to blows!

Response        

In essence, the concept of military revolution as developed during the Renaissance is grounded on the principles of economy, politics, and technology.  In a way, the principles of military revolution were also patterned after the Renaissance itself where creativity and ingenuity were fueled by the strong economy in Italy.  War is an expensive undertaking and Renaissance military theorists understood it very well.  They also understood that ultimately, any conflict must have a political resolution and that technology is a definite advantage for any party engaged in war and in fact can spell the difference between defeat and victory.  Roberts and Parker’s persuasion may differ in some aspects but they are still grounded on these principles.

As an example of recent experience in war, we can take for example the recent war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq where the principles of war developed during the Renaissance is being applied.  First is the enunciation of a clear objective by President Obama to degrade and ultimately defeat Isis.  Second, the avoidance of the use of boots on the ground is consistent with the principle of economy of force in its offensive.  Its assumption as an advisory role to the Iraqi military is also consistent with the principle of unity of command as the US tries to put the organization in an otherwise ineffective military organization.  There is also an aspect of military principle in America’s offensive that was distinctly derived from the Renaissance.  That is, capitalizing on the economy, politics, and technology.  War is an expensive undertaking and must be backed up by a strong economy that the US can afford.  The US also sought allies in the region to make the offensive more effective and politically acceptable.  And the heavy use of aircraft for bombardment is taking advantage of technology to avoid casualties and political ramifications from their respective countries.