Comments on: Clausewitz, On War, Book II: Inducing a General Theory of War

By: YT

YT — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:22:00 +0000

LG : I’d like one.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:41:45 +0000

“How’d you submit posts here?”

By invitation.

By: YT

YT — Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:35:05 +0000

LG : I’d suggest you list down the things that Sun Tzu failed to mention… but that’s probably more applicable for a future post or Roundtable. Well, it’s ONLY 13 chapters. How’d you submit posts here? Am a lil’ lost.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 21:32:59 +0000

I have that one on the shelf. I have looked at Sun Tzu many times. I need to read it through with care one of these days.

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 05:01:46 +0000

Lex, When you do read Sun Tzu, I recommend the Samuel Griffiths translation. It’s a quick read — more Zen than dialectic.

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:57:22 +0000

I have not actually read Sun Tzu.

Clausewitz first. China’s master theorist at some point.

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:29:54 +0000

Lex,

I have always interpreted Sun Tzu’s adage as the former: something achievable, albeit for the wise leader who follows his advice. But we can see hints of Clausewitz’s disdain for this approach, since the adversary will preserve the means to wage violence later — and very likely would (in Carl von’s mind) once the previous victor’s back were turned….

By: Lexington Green

Lexington Green — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:47:22 +0000

Was Sun Tzu’s “acme of skill”, winning without violence, an actual and realizable goal or was it more like Clausewitz’s Absolute War, an ideal which was not realizable in practice. I thought it was more like the latter.