//
you're reading...
Afghanistan War, Africa, China, City-States Politics, economics, Laws of War, Libya, media watch, Military Analysis, NATO, others, Political Analysis, products, Psychological Analysis, recommendations, security, The Anthology of Anthropological Studies, UK New Strategy, UN, US

The Greatest Secret: How To Win Against Anyone, Just Don’t Fight!!


”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.”

Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

The above quotation is from the infamous ancient strategist, Master Sun Tzu, which has been promiscuously used without really evidence that those applying the stated wisdom, really had any comprehensive or appreciative understanding of what it really meant, minus few in the entire history of humankind. These few, to mention, will be Master Gandhi, Master Martin Luther King Jr., Master Nelson Mandela and finally, perhaps, as time is yet to tell, Madam Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma (will she free the state?)

The secret is so simple, yet so demanding with patience and suffering, that only the few, those above named individuals, really applied the concept/wisdom to its letter. These individuals suffered painfully and for a protracted period of time, but never once they used violence, or incited the use of violence.

In other words, ladies and gentlemen, they appreciated-well the wise words of the old masters, never stomp to their low, or play by their rule. To make it more clearer, the ”actor” who seeks to use violence on you, has a prior planned and expected, nay, (his only) hope you will reciprocate with the same use of violence, and from there, we get the Clausewitzian Escalation, arms for arms, and in the end, the first actor, will probably always come up the winner; you have stomped to their low/and game, and lost badly.

The Analogical Analysis: The Case of The Bully and The Bullied

Lets take a simple everyday children and societal concerns on bullying.

Here we have the bully and the bullied, the powerful and the lesser one. The bully always seek to escalate violence and hopes that one day you will defy his/her aggressions and challenge him/her in front of the rest, the other weaklings, s/he hopes to ‘whoop your kabus’ so the rest will know exactly who is the ”boss” around, who ”owns the school and you”!

Now, there are, or tend to be almost, three major schools of thoughts on how to deal with bullies;

1. Report them, or the school should implement bully-free environment (what we mistakenly attempted to do more recent with our anti-war laws)

2. Give-in to the Bully’s demands, keep head down and move on, hoping s/he will tire of you and focus in picking someone else, while you regain ”moral superiority” (if s/he keeps picking you a lot, s/he will create divisions around him/herself, as his/her allies will be revolted, as others, against his/her ”unfair and unwarranted” treatment on you: divided and ruled, one of your hopes) and so forth.

3. The Fight Back, from macho-dads. ”There is only one way to deal with the bully son/daughter, fight back, okay”.

Now, we have acknowledged already the fatalistic nature of the first school of approach to the problem, as it tends to create a more risk-aversive & nanny society, and so forth, or in our recent efforts, world government (to regulate the use of force). With the third approach, we have already looked at, that it is more or less stupid and fool-hearted as the first approach (though, there is some situational dependency variations (sdv), meaning, at certain times and places, it might just work; Mao in China, Fidel in Cuba, Africans against Colonial Powers etc. However, I should stress the roles of chances-play/cause and aforementioned SDV factors). The second approach is the winning school of thought, the one of Sun Tzu, and the four personalities mentioned above; never ever fight back, attempt, always and continuously, to winning the moral superiority platform, the hearts and minds campaign of your own. This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the secret to non-fighting and winning against anyone, or any powerful coalition in any fields of professions. However, certain situational analysis and appreciation must not be overlooked.

To Sum Up:

Winning Wars, is something western societies have recently found it much easier, but not winning sustainable peace. It is this, that which still sees Iraq in flames, Libya to be, Afghanistan as Hell, and entire the world turning against the west (though still behind doors, as the silent revolt keeps growing, as we engage more and more into ”fighting wars”, other peoples wars, and left with permanent scars of future enemies).

P.S. I REALISED THIS SECRET IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PRESENTATION ON THE LAWS AGAINST WARS IN THE GLOBAL AFFAIRS, AND BEFORE CLOSING, I PRESENTED IT TO THOSE PRESENT AND WAS WELL RECEIVED.

THANKS YOU ALL FOR YOUR EXCELLENT CONTRIBUTIONS, ESPECIALLY, ANONYMOUS, WHO REALLY GOT ME (RE)THINKING: IT IS NOT THE FIGHTING THAT WINS, BUT THE NOT-FIGHTING APPROACH, WHICH IS THE REAL WINNING STRATEGY.

similar post:

https://geopoliticalintelligence.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/the-single-greatest-collective-strategic-defeat-ever-in-history-how-the-west-lost-the-rest/

GOOD HEADLINES FROM THE WEEK FOR YOU ALL:

1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/30/us-wasted-billions-iraq-afghanistan-contracts

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/585dadcc-d3f1-11e0-b7eb-00144feab49a.html

2. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/31/youngest-london-rioter-boy-11-sentenced

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/us-firms-torture-flights-rendition

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ny-billing-dispute-reveals-details-of-secret-cia-rendition-flights/2011/08/30/gIQAbggXsJ_story.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/us-troops-did-execute-iraqi-civilians-leaked-letter-claims-2347843.html

http://www.presstv.com/detail/196983.html

http://www.presstv.com/detail/196983.html

4. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/31/sarkozy-campaign-cash-heiress-bettencourt

5. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/exclusive-smoked-out-tobacco-giants-war-on-science-2347254.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8734295/Philip-Morris-tobacco-firm-using-FOI-laws-to-access-secret-academic-data.html

6. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-only-postcode-without-a-tesco-ndash-but-for-how-much-longer-2347187.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/31/tesco-japan-pull-out-philip-clarke

7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/tripolis-sudden-fall-revealed-rotten-heart-of-gaddafis-regime/2011/08/27/gIQABpgssJ_story.html

8. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/wikileaks-says-all-its-us-diplomatic-cables-have-been-exposed-blames-newspaper-for-breach/2011/08/31/gIQAwvq1sJ_story.html

9. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2032404/Scientists-produce-worlds-test-tube-burger-replace-real-meat.html

10. http://www.presstv.com/detail/196713.html

11. http://rt.com/news/nato-chewing-resolution-libya-525/

12. http://www.presstv.com/detail/195793.html

http://rt.com/news/us-bill-palestine-statehood/

13. http://www.presstv.com/detail/196833.html

http://www.presstv.com/detail/196626.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6bdc0118-d40b-11e0-b7eb-00144feab49a.html

14. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/ny-billing-dispute-reveals-details-of-secret-cia-rendition-flights/2011/08/30/gIQAbggXsJ_story.html

15. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/nato-war-footing-libya

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/libya-oil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/libya-alan-duncan-links-oil-cell

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8735443/Libya-could-be-the-last-place-where-the-West-is-allowed-to-intervene.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576544580088946772.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904716604576544580088946772.html?mod=ITP_pageone_4

http://www.presstv.com/detail/196931.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8736496/Libya-the-minister-the-Tory-donor-and-a-contract-to-supply-oil.html

http://rt.com/news/nato-libya-oil/

http://rt.com/news/libya-oil-france-conference/

http://www.economist.com/node/21528299

http://rt.com/politics/nato-disrespects-international-law-591/

16. http://www.presstv.com/detail/196968.html.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/196865.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/next-war-libya-one-for-oil

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/libya-attack-gaddafi-strongholds

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/libya-intervention-british-forces-key

17. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/8736033/Smartcards-for-millions-of-bus-passengers.html

ET

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/02/secondary-school-teacher-soldier

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/01/berlusconi-vows-leave-shitty-italy

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/so-arrogant-and-stupid-they-might-bring-us-all-down-darlings-verdict-on-britains-bankers-2347916.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/press/spies-targeted-le-monde-to-protect-sarkozy-2347849.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8736640/UK-riots-Michael-Gove-pledges-to-tackle-underclass.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2032402/Tumbleweed-Tiny-House-Company-makes-tiny-65-sq-ft-build-homes.html


good documentary on 9/11 so far:

http://www.videoweed.es/file/lb0oho6dv2c7o

Advertisements

About s.s.salim: Geopolitical Analyst

Political & Strategy Defence & Security Intelligence & Communications

Discussion

8 thoughts on “The Greatest Secret: How To Win Against Anyone, Just Don’t Fight!!

  1. I don’t think that Sun Tzu was promoting nonviolent resistance (which is only one of the many ways to win without fighting). I’m inclined to believe that he was more interested in victory through subversion than the bloody course of victory by confrontation. Destroying your enemies from within is far less bloody (for you!) than attacking your enemies to defeat them. After all, Sun Tzu was nothing if not greatly interested in spycraft.

    Posted by nathanalbright | September 5, 2011, 11:31 am
    • Hey Nathan,

      Sun Tzu was a strategist, not aptly just a military strategist, hence, his reverence in widest of fields, from management, business, to politics and diplomacy, and it is the last two, under the rubric of ”high politics” of policy and security that I intended to apply my argument.

      In short, to create change, to challenge aggressor with claimant of legitimacy to power, to seek ”revolution” (the term is more romantic than useful), then one has to ”create a non-violent SOP (standard operating system, so to speak) or model, towards the grand cause of competition, is what in the business world referred to as ”Brand Wars”, subjective, might both be the same in characteristic and properties, but only different is the marketing arm ability to sell it as better than the rivals.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | September 5, 2011, 12:39 pm
  2. You’ve taken a single statement by SunTzu and ignored the rest of his writings. Nathan is correct. It is far better to win without fighting, but SunTzu was no recommending that you refuse to fight, but rather that if you are prepared to fight and can find a way to win without fighting, you have done better.

    Your analysis about bullies is ridiculously wrong.

    Let’s suppose that you’re right and the bully does want a fight. The reason you give is that he wants to fight you and win to demonstrate his prowess and proves to everyone that he is in charge. However, if no one ever challenges him, as you recommend, he gets to be in charge without fighting. The bully does not need to fight you if all you do is submit to his will. So, why would he want to risk losing a fight if he gets what he wants without fighting? Incidentally, by not having to fight the submissive populace, he demonstrates the “acme of skill” himself.

    Supposing that by getting what he wants from you, he will disgust his friends, how will they stop him from bullying you?

    You mention several successful non-violent protesters who won in the end. Interestingly, all opposed Western societies with freedom of the press. In each case, some measure of restraint stopped the authorities from simply eliminating the protester. Such restraint would be hard to have found in Gaddafi’s Libya, Saddam’s Iraq, Mao’s China, Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union. Such protesters would have been silenced either in jails or permanently by execution.

    For a fine example in world politics, check the effectiveness of Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement policy. He refused to fight and simply gave the bully what he wanted. Then, the bully wanted more. Do you really think he would have ever stopped wanting more?

    Posted by David Navarre | September 6, 2011, 12:18 pm
    • Good Counter-Arguments as always, David, However…..

      I was waiting as I was reading down the arguments for a point at which to counter-attack with my own forces and you gave it to me at the end, though you had built it up from the second line, it was the analogical use of Chamberlain, the beloved western model of ”how-not” to do it in politics etc,.

      Let see.

      Chamberlain, was no appeaser, rather victors ”wrote the history”, and in their ”history he was one”. Chamberlain was the shrewdest of veteran politicians, with excellent colonial and global experiences in political affairs and diplomatic matters, as well as the high aspects of security and so forth, and it was this rather than the presented historical version of ”spineless, hopeless and an outplayed pacifist”, that saw him calculating with brilliant accuracy that , the western world, the Anglo-Franco Alliance of the time was in no condition to fighting a war, economically, but most importantly, defence wise.; Britain had a dismal forces after the WWI, with shortage in abundance, of stocks in ammunitions, weapons, technical capabilities etc.,

      In short, if you had attempted with openness to understand clearly and appreciate what I was attempting to say, you would have understood that I did not provide the model as ”the standard to be”, but rather as I stated clearly, it will depend in all, at the local present situations faced, hence the situational dependency variations; is the cause stronger? is the enemy unbeatable arms wise? how long it will take one to ”secretly” rebuild oneself before, that, before, accepting to fight in his/her own terms not that of the bully.

      In other words, David, good attempt to counter-argue, but alas the need to challenge the ”little commie”, eh, is to stronger to have lost the real point and meaning behind the text.

      Thanks Again, always looking forward to your counter-arguments.

      Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | September 6, 2011, 12:59 pm
  3. Um… “It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence.”– Gandhi.

    Or, if you prefer, “Peace in Our Time”…

    Posted by Anonymous | September 29, 2011, 3:20 am
      • For an actual discussion of the quote from Ghandi rather than your rather abrupt dismissal, see http://www.volconvo.com/forums/philosophy-religion/29237-gandhis-view-violence-not-so-simple.html

        I do find it comical that normally when you are presented with arguments, you tend to either ignore them or dismiss them with such brevity.

        Posted by David Navarre | September 29, 2011, 2:29 pm
      • Oh, hallo, David. It has been long time.

        Anyway….

        Brevity, I doubt it! However, It is finding the inability of the ”next party” to comprehend the argument without full elaboration, hence, I left the, how can I say it with (to use the crook Murdoch phrase) ‘humbleness’, (all, descriptives lack-humbleness, so), the LinkedIn, there is more thickness in there, I guess that is why to many ‘real world businesses and players’ the forum is a joke.

        Anyway…..

        Back to the point, the statement and the thesis rather seeks to amplify the usefulness and capabilities of doing less, that DOING, and winning big, than when one does something big, caught in emotions losing focus and intelligence in re-organizing thoughts and strategising, the ‘what next?’ etc.

        Not fighting means, the ability to deplete morally, physically and psychologically, your opposition in time and through expansive energy-waste, then one can chose either to finish off, the Guerrillas favorite, or through self-defeatism, the Gandhi-Approach, where the loss of the moral-bubble from the opponent side, forces them to declare you a winner.

        I hope I have helped, at last.

        Posted by s.s.salem: Independent specialist | September 29, 2011, 6:12 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: