Would Sun Tzu Have Advised America To Use Deception Against Its Rivals Instead Of Using On Its Own

A non-existent historical figure? The poet Homer first springs to mind…A commonly held view amongst scholars is that rather than being the blind, wandering bard of legends, Homer never actually existed, and never wrote the Iliad or the Odyssey. Instead, the works are considered the result of several poets’ verses collectively, with the stories passed on through oral tradition.This view is backed up by the way the epics are written. As anyone who has read the Odyssey or Iliad will no doubt be all too familiar with, there are many repeated epithets such as ‘swift-footed Achilles’ and ‘resourceful Odysseus’, or phrases like ‘when young Dawn showed again with her rosy fingers’. The reason why Homer felt the need to endlessly point out the fun fact that Athena was ‘bright -eyed’ over and over was not just to be irritating: those epithets actually served as a mnemonic device for poets as the verses whilst they were passed down the generations. They were go-to stock phrases which fit the meter of the poem and so was easier for the poets to memorize when it was passed down, and helped bards when they were improvising new verses.There’s also a theory that the name Homer was just a title given to poets of this sort. Homer is basically identical to the Greek word ὅμηρος, meaning hostage - this links to the clan of poets called Homeridae, possibly meaning ‘children of hostages’. It is believed that, since they were hostages, their loyalty could not be assumed, so they did not take part in wars, and were instead entrusted to remember past events through epic poetry. This would mean Homer is just a back-formation rather than being their ancestor.Homer may well just be a mythical figure, and the embodiment of years of oral tradition from several bards, or could have actually been a genius poet like Virgil, single-handedly (or for the most part) producing the epics. The evidence seems to lean towards the former, but we just don’t know for sure. Neither did the Ancients themselves, really. Either way, he, or they, have produced two of the finest works of literature which have truly stood the test of time.

Absolutely! The numbers, venues and weapons may be obsolete, but the strategic considerations are as relevant today as in Sun Tzu's time. To think otherwise is to be ignorant of current affairs and business practices. Sadly, USA is paying the enormous costs of such monumental stupidity.Compare and contrast the costs/benefits and consequences of the two Iraqi wars..故上兵伐谋，其次伐交，其次伐兵，其下攻城。。thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.。Bush 41 isolated Saddam Hussein by skillfully exploiting internal Shiite, Kurdish divisions; building a UN-approved coalition such that even Russia abandoned Saddam. Attacking remotely, where Saddam least expect it, victory was swift and devastating. Saddam was already lost when he ordered a chaotic, withdrawal, leading to the biggest Turkey shoot in history. Desert Storm was universally applauded as a text-book case of overwhelming strategic and tactical success. US even made a nominal profit. Bush 41 wisely allowed Saddam to stay in power to maintain strategic balance in the region.In contrast, Bush 43 made the worst decision to “besiege the city.” Drunk with misguided pride and missionary zeal after initial success against the Taliban in Afghanistan, he asserted that Saddam was behind the 911 attacks, selectively denying American intelligence reports that Al Qaeda, no friend of secular Saddam, was responsible. Then, failing to show credible proof of weapons of mass destruction and thus no UN resolution, he twisted arms to attack with only the “coalition of the willing.” Winning battle after battle but at enormous costs, and seeing no crowds bearing flowers and sweets. Instead, decade-long insurgencies and the rise of DAESH. The total tab is $2 trillions and counting, thus arguably losing the peace.So indirectly, the path of China rising is cleared by strategic failure of Bush 43 administration in understanding Sun Tzu's philosophy.

There are a myriad of books that you can read about warfare, battles and strategy. But in the end you will get lost. You need to get down the basics of how an army on the move operates and thinks.First you should read the "FM 3–0, Operations" from the US Field manuals. It will give you a picture of how a war is conducted and how every part play its role.After you should learn about individual combat skills. Read "FM 3-21.75, The Warrior Ethos And Soldier Combat Skills" to understand what skills a soldier needs to know regardless of his position.Then read "FM 3-21.8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon And Squad" and "FM 3-21.10 The Infantry Rifle Company" to get an insight of the missions an infanty platoon or company undertakes. Since infantry is the main component of an army everything tends to revolve around it.At this point you will have an understanding of how war is conducted, from the single soldier to the general.A link with all these field manuals is this: Army Field ManualsAfter that, you can study any other training manual that pertains to warfare under special conditions (mountain, desert, amphibious, jungle, riverlines, airborne etc) because you will already know how an infantry company works in a normal enviroment and you will only need to see what must be done differently.Take notice though that there two kind of manuals: doctrine and technical skills. Doctrine dictates employment of units and technical skills apply to individual combat skills.Finally you should study the writings of famous generals on strategy and personal experiences. There is no better teacher than experience. I especially advise you to study books on military history and  learn military map symbols to understand how units were deployed during important battles. And to close, I give you one last word of wisdom. A soldier doesn't care how units will be deployed. He cares only about surviving the next mission. For him, marksmanship, small-unit-tactics, navigation, first-aid, radio procedures, survival skills become more important than playing "chess" with the enemy general.The general on the other hand cares about deployment of units and resources.  For him, units positions, supply lines, water and food procurement, knowledge of the terrain, intelligence reports of enemy movements are more important than his individual combat skills.So choose who you want to be.JK, 2014