Rumsfeld is speaking of the Iraq war. It was an optional war, the army turned out to be far understrength for establishing order, and they deliberately threw out the careful plans for preserving e.g. Iraqi museums from looting that had been drawn up by the State Department, due to interdepartmental rivalry.
This doesn’t prove the advice is bad, but at the very least, Rumsfeld was just spouting off Deep Wisdom that he did not benefit from spouting; one would wish to see it spoken by someone who actually benefited from the advice, rather than someone who wilfully and wantonly underprepared for an actual war.
I think the quote is an alternative translation of paragraph 15 in the link above:
“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”
It has an associated commentary:
Ho Shih thus expounds the paradox: “In warfare, first lay plans which will ensure victory, and then lead your army to battle; if you will not begin with stratagem but rely on brute strength alone, victory will no longer be assured.”
I don’t see the circularity. Just because a warrior is victorious doesn’t necessarily mean they won before going to war; it might be instead that victorious warriors go to war first and then seek to win, and defeated warriors do the same thing. Can you spell out the circularity?
Unless you interpret “win first” as “prepare for every eventuality, calculate the unbiased probability of winning and be comfortable with the odds when going to battle”, “win first” can only be meaningfully applied in retrospect.
I think you’ve stumbled upon the correct interpretation.
Sun Tzu was fond of making warfare about strategy and logistics rather than battles, so that one would only fight when victory is a foregone conclusion.
That only seems relevant if the war in question is optional.
Rumsfeld is speaking of the Iraq war. It was an optional war, the army turned out to be far understrength for establishing order, and they deliberately threw out the careful plans for preserving e.g. Iraqi museums from looting that had been drawn up by the State Department, due to interdepartmental rivalry.
This doesn’t prove the advice is bad, but at the very least, Rumsfeld was just spouting off Deep Wisdom that he did not benefit from spouting; one would wish to see it spoken by someone who actually benefited from the advice, rather than someone who wilfully and wantonly underprepared for an actual war.
Indeed. The proper response, which is surely worth contemplation, would have been:
Sun Tzu
This is a circular definition, not an advice.
I would naively read it as “don’t start a fight unless you know you’re going to win”.
If you read it literally. I think Sun Tzu is talking about the benefit of planning.
I’m guessing that something got lost in translation,
In context: http://suntzusaid.com/book/4
I think the quote is an alternative translation of paragraph 15 in the link above:
“Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.”
It has an associated commentary:
Ho Shih thus expounds the paradox: “In warfare, first lay plans which will ensure victory, and then lead your army to battle; if you will not begin with stratagem but rely on brute strength alone, victory will no longer be assured.”
I don’t see the circularity.
Just because a warrior is victorious doesn’t necessarily mean they won before going to war; it might be instead that victorious warriors go to war first and then seek to win, and defeated warriors do the same thing.
Can you spell out the circularity?
Unless you interpret “win first” as “prepare for every eventuality, calculate the unbiased probability of winning and be comfortable with the odds when going to battle”, “win first” can only be meaningfully applied in retrospect.
I think you’ve stumbled upon the correct interpretation.
Sun Tzu was fond of making warfare about strategy and logistics rather than battles, so that one would only fight when victory is a foregone conclusion.
Ah, I see what you mean now.
Thanks for the clarification.