posted
A few pertinent quotes from The Book of The Tao; The Key to the Mastery of Life, 1962 by Frank J. MacHovec, Peter Pauper Press:
War is Evil
Weapons are tools of destruction avoided by followers of Tao. The citizen favors the creative in time of peace; the citizen favors the destructive in time of war.
Weapons are the tools of destruction not used by people of dignity, but when their use cannot be avoided, the best policy is calm restraint.
There is no beauty in victory. Whoever calls it so delights in slaughter. Whoever delights in slaughter is unfit to rule.
Tao in War
Whoever advises a ruler according to the Tao opposes conquest by war. Policies of war tend to rebound. Where the armies march, brambles grow. Whenever a great army is formed, hunger and evil follow. So a wise general achieves his goal and stops; he does not battle beyond victory; he wins, but does not revel in the spoils; he wins, for it is his duty to win; he wins, but not from love of violence. Things reach their peak, then decline. Violence opposes Tao. Whoever opposes Tao dies early.
Tao Strategy
Ancient military strategists said: "I would rather be invaded than be the invader; I would rather retreat one foot than advance one inch."
This means not marching in formation; not appearing prepared, with sleaves up; not charging in frontal assault; not arming with elaborate weapons.
There is no more fateful catastrophe than to underestimate the enemy. To underestimate the enemy is to run the risk of losing treasures. Thus when evenly matched armies battle, the passive, recessive one is the victor.
Victory in Tao
The most skilled soldier is not agressive; the most proficient fighter never loses control; the most victorious commander does not bicker; the most efficient leader is humble before all. This is the virtue of serenity. This is the mastery of life. This is matching Teh to Tao.
quote:Ancient military strategists said: "I would rather be invaded than be the invader; I would rather retreat one foot than advance one inch."
This means not marching in formation; not appearing prepared, with sleaves up; not charging in frontal assault; not arming with elaborate weapons.
I think that contrasts strongly with the modern notion of Peace Through Strength, which I think has worked quite effectively. The surest way to entice the warmongers of the world, and thus bring on war, is to appear weak, and this seems to have been confirmed in recent history time after time. Only when there is a credible military deterrent do some of the other arts really come into play in a meaningful way, such as the art of diplomacy.
Granted, a culture steeped in "Tao" might see things otherwise. I don't know. Certainly the need to fight a war, even a defensive one, seems such a waste and a failure of something.
quote:Weapons are the tools of destruction not used by people of dignity, but when their use cannot be avoided, the best policy is calm restraint.
It probably isn't a new thing to bring one's personal ethics and cultural mores into the practice of war, as oxymoronic as that may sound. But theoretically, at least in the U.S. culture of today, we make war only to counter aggression and we do so in a way so as to spare civilian casualties where possible and to bring about a lasting peace. We spend as much, if not more, in rebuilding in the aftermath of war as in the tools of war themselves. And the "calm restraint" in the way we fight wars is shown perhaps in the enormous sums of money we spend on advanced weaponry, that not only is more effective in winning wars and winning them quickly, but in sparing civilian casualties. But the "calm restraint" may not be the best definition of the way we fight wars these days where the doctrine is the use of overwhelming force.
Posts: 5365 | From: Washington State | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
. Shalom Place
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
