I am trying to keep it short today. This is partially because I don’t have a whole lot to add, but also because while I think that this is solid advice, it is not universally true. You will see why as you read on.

This is one of those chapters that while might be good advice and good tactics, is probably outdated. The first part of the chapter is about the different types of terrain.

  • Accessible – equal advantage either side, take the high ground
  • Entangling – can move forward but not back
  • Deadlock – no advantage either side
  • Enclosed – can move back but not forward
  • Precipitous – take the high ground

The reason that I believe that this is out of date advice is that when we look at modern warfare, it is way more complicated. Adhering to this advice strictly, there would have never been invasions of the Pacific Islands during WWII. Modern weapons such as airplanes have drastically changed the strategy for assaults.

With Veteran’s Day coming up, my most familiar conventional war was World War II. I think about those ‘kids’ putting out temporary bridges for the invading force to use. I heard a story about US Seabees bulldozing a landing strip while being shot at. I think by Sun Tzu’s definition, these were probably bad tactics.

On the other hand, the US could have used some Sun Tzu wisdom in Vietnam. I think that we thought based on what we did in WWII that we could bulldoze our way through that war. Certainly, we didn’t heed the advice to get out of the swamp as soon as possible. Bombers, artillery, gunships etc could not clear out the jungle. We haven’t got to or I don’t know if Sun Tzu addresses the will of the opposition.

I want to relate this to the election badly or at least something not military related, but it is hard. I suppose if we say the terrain is something like the economy then you might say stepping into the battlefield with weapons like it is ‘your fault’ and you ‘just don’t get it’ were inadequate. The democrats stayed way too long in terrain that was not advantageous.

Even stalwart supporters like minority groups thumbed their noses at Democrats. This is now in the territory of moving forward without the ability to move back. I have no idea why the party of Lincoln ultimately got the no questions asked approval of the party of slavery in the 20th century. The Democrats were the party of segregation in the 1960s. And yet they didn’t blink an eye to support the Democrats.

A short diatribe. When my wife and I moved to South Carolina in 2001, my wife’s aunt was disturbed. She said ‘how could you move to a state that Strum Thurmond was a Senator’? Strom was a famous racist Democrat in the 1960s and my wife’s aunt was the Democrat that I spoke of in my podcast Monday. How those two could be in the same party is beyond me but Strom was now a Republican for twenty years.

I don’t care what party is after your name people are who people are. That being said, those people an change. I am not going to give them a current inch but when you start moving in the right direction, it is tie to let the past be the past. I think Trump started with advantage to move forward, but not back. It turns out that was the result of the election.

End Your Programming Routine: I had to try to find some relevance outside of military tactics because I don’t find this chapter super relevant. As such, I had to make some stretching to try and make this pertinent. While I don’t trust either side, clearly the tactic to denigrate the common man failed, this time. Don’t be surprised if either party brings it back. I am just happy that the group that was perpetrating it got it shoved in their face. That is picking a battle in the wrong terrain.