'The Art Of War And Warfare: An Intervention'

All three articles discuss the central issue of what motivates someone to commit a violent act or kill another person. They do this in slightly different ways, and with different context having both Grossman and Leshan discuss violence in the context of war. Grossmans discuss the topics in multifaceted approach and brings up several different reasons why specifically someone would be willing to kill someone such as emotional, cultural, moral, social, and mechanical distance. Leshan mainly discussed the idea that there is a change in the perception of reality during war time which justifies the killing of other people. Finally, is Rai who states and argues that morality is the main motivation the drives people to commit violent acts against others

How should leaders approach the ideas of peace and war? This question has fascinated those in positions of power for ages. Ancient Chinese philosopher Lao-Tzu believes that war should only take place in the direst of situations and should not be considered virtuous (61; sec. 31). On the contrary, Niccolo Machiavelli, a fifteenth-century Italian philosopher, states, “A prince, therefore, must not have any other object nor any other thought, nor must he take anything as his profession but war…” (86). While Lao-Tzu formulates an ideal approach to war and Machiavelli a practical one, neither one of their strategies would be effective in the real world; leaders must conduct their military with a balance of serenity and brutality.

Sun Tzu and Machiavelli have similar views on preparation before battle. Both believe that appropriate preparation ultimately causes victory to lean in the favor of those with little reliance on circumstance. Machiavelli stated that “rulers maintain themselves better if they owe little to luck.” Leaders prepared for battle will not falter under the weight of pressure unlike opposition who rely on a specific circumstances for their strategy to be effective. Sun Tzu practically implies that the same exact tactic be used by generals of armies. He says, “Therefore, the victorious military is first victorious and after that does battle. The defeated military first does battle and after that seeks victory.” Sun Tzu’s statement seems to provide a more precise strategy which is clearly tailored more towards a military interested in winning battles rather than a ruler governing a principality. Sun Tzu’s directions are all about

Lao-tzu argues: “how could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men?” (209). Leaders should seek peace not war because people are happy when their lives are simple and in harmony. How could a mother be happy when her sons are killed at war? And how could fathers be delighted when they spend most of their lives in war, far away from their families? A leader should always try to avoid war. Lao-tzu added: "A leader is best when people barely know he exists; when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.” A true leader does not talk too much, but he gets the job

Many people tend to think war is a part of life that mankind will never be able to rid itself of. This comes from the assumption that war is one of the basic needs of mankind. However, Margaret Mead does not make this assumption. In fact, she denies its credibility in her essay “Warfare is Only an Invention – Not a Biological Necessity.” In this essay, Margaret Mead combines a great deal of logos and ethos with limited pathos to support her pacifist claim that warfare is merely an invention of man, and not a need found in the very nature of man. While Mead’s claim does not agree with the most common beliefs about warfare, its mixture of logos and ethos is as strong as the bricks and mortar of a

On the other hand, Sun Tzu takes a different approach to human nature. His belief is that the motivations of the individual will align with the motivations of the leader once the proper connections are established via The Way (The Art of War, 3). Sun Tzu expresses realism in a different and more subtle way than Machiavelli does, by comparing flowing water to the warrior: “Water shapes its current From the lie of the land. The Warrior shapes his victory From the dynamic of the enemy.” (The Art of War, 38).

Lao-Tzu believes war should be the very last choice when coming to a disagreement. He believes this because of the loss and grief in which war creates. Lao-Tzu is correct in his thoughts because when a loved one passes away on the battle field, there is lots of grief and sorrow, he states, “He enters a battle gravely / with great sorrow and with great compassion / as if he were attending a funeral” (Lao-Tzu 209). No person should have to suffer the loss of a loved one through being killed on a battle field. If someone is forced to fight in a war not willingly, the person will not perform to the best of their abilities, Lao-Tzu

Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli's thoughts on war polarize in their beliefs. Lao-Tzu states, "Weapons are the tools of fear; a decent man will avoid them." and "... He enters a battle gravely, with sorrow and great compassion, as if he were attending a funeral" (Stanza 31, Page 24). Lao-Tzu clearly dislikes war, or any kind of violence. He compares it to a funeral; for example, death surrounds the battlefield, which advertently causes

Warfare is the engagement in war of violence it is believed that warfare is human nature and that it is enviable. Warfare can be caused by many things. Some which include, environmental factors, political , religious beliefs, completion between states and even excessive population growth. This has been studied through ancient civilizations. By studying them we can compare them to modern day humans.When this is done we can see that warfare is a huge part of our lives, whether we want to admit it or not. One ancient civilization that distinctly shows violence and war is the Mayans. Though in many books they are seen as a peaceful population, when loosely closely at their lifestye, you can see that was not the case.

War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning, written by the talented author Chris Hedges, gives us provoking thoughts that are somewhat painful to read but at the same time are quite personal confessions. Chris Hedges, a talented journalist to say the least, brings nearly 15 years of being a foreign correspondent to this book and subjectively concludes how all of his world experiences tie together. Throughout his book, he unifies themes present in all wars he experienced first hand. The most important themes I was able to draw from this book were, war skews reality, dominates culture, seduces society with its heroic attributes, distorts memory, and supports a cause, and allures us by a

The Art of War was written under the premise of prevailing in conflict, whereas Machiavelli wrote on ruling and maintaining power. The reason I believe San Tzu’s work to be the stronger one out of the two is because there is an emphasis on knowing. Sun Tzu bases war on knowing when and who to fight, he only believes in participating in a fight you are capable of winning. Sun Tzu effectively uses intelligence in his work as he evaluates the five different conditions that affect the way one fights a war (Tzu, p. 42). These five conditions are crucial to the text as the explain the strategic way of understanding not only one’s enemy, but also the playing field (Tzu, p. 42)1.

Leadership is the backbone of both Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, and Machiavelli’s The Prince. I will explore how Sun Tzu’s and Machiavelli’s perspectives on leadership contrast because of how each author explores the concept of morality and human nature. To accomplish this, one must understand that leadership in this context refers to both diplomatic and militarily. First, I will explain how each writer’s perspective on leadership differs, and how morality ties into both of their concepts about leadership, which explores both writer’s concepts on diplomatic leadership. Then I will move into warfare, and discuss each writer’s views on how war should be executed and what utility it serves, which will show the rigid dichotomy between them. This in effect will open the discussion of human nature, in which I will explain how each writer views human nature, and what they do to deal with their view on the inherent human nature. This is important because it

Sun Tzu understood the nature of war as “the province of life or death,” and a “matter of vital importance to the state.”1 I agree. In my own experience, war awakens your primordial instincts and strips you of your self-rationalizations. Sun Tzu defined the character of war when he wrote, “water has no constant form, there are in war no constant conditions.”2 Accordingly, Sun Tzu’s principals of war offer a framework adequate to explain the nature and character of 21st century warfare, which I rationalize as a near-continuous battle of ideologies fought through asymmetric means to advance the values and interests of state and non-state actors.

In the time period of last ten years, many changes have been observed in the nature of Warfare from being aggressive towards more argumentative. There are various views and debates among the nature and character of the wars and the debate continues to grow with time. The several reasons of changes can be attributed to the technological advances and other situational changes. This essay is going to shed light upon whether the nature and character of war has been changed in the course of recent years or it continues to be the same as it was years ago.

The “Art of War” and “De Re Militari” two military treatises were written one continent and around five centuries apart by authors that came from two vastly different backgrounds and cultures. Both authors penned treatises intended to inform and educate commanders about war yet the underlying theme is not victory but to ensure the survivability of their soldiers in battle. Sun Tzu and Vegetius differ on their ideas of this specifically on the relationship the military holds between the governing body as well as relations with the civilian population. However, what they do come together on ideas of efficient battle that minimizes Soldier loss as much as possible.