We once regarded the elimination of enemy forces as one of the main goals pursued in war, but we did not talk about how important this goal is compared to other goals. Its importance is determined according to different specific circumstances. From a general perspective, there is no final conclusion about how valuable it is. Now we return to this topic and discuss how valuable this purpose is.
Combat is the only effective military activity in war. In battle, destroying the enemy is a means to achieve an end, even if the battle is not actually carried out, because no matter what the situation, the ending is undoubtedly based on the elimination of the enemy's army. The elimination of enemy forces is the foundation of all military operations and the most basic pillar of all operations. All actions are based on destroying enemy forces, just like arches are built on stone pillars. Therefore, the premise of all actions is that if the battle that is the basis of the action really occurs, it must be beneficial to us. The relationship between combat and military operations of all sizes is the same as the relationship between cash payment and contemporaneous ticket transactions. No matter how long the time limit is for cashing, no matter how little the chance of cashing is, it still has to be cashed in the end.
Combat is the basis of all actions. From this, it can be concluded that the enemy can make any of these actions meaningless by winning a battle. The enemy can not only pass a battle that has a direct impact on our actions, but also pass any time. There are sufficiently significant battles to achieve this. Because any important battle, that is, the elimination of the opponent's army, will affect all other previous battles, the results of these battles are like liquids and must be maintained at a certain level.
Destroying enemy forces is always a more important and effective method than any other method.
When all other conditions are the same, eliminating the enemy's army will undoubtedly have a greater effect. However, if it is concluded from this that blind hard work is better than cautious and clever work, that is a great misunderstanding. Being brave and unprepared, sometimes not only can't destroy the enemy's army, but it will cause unnecessary losses to one's own army. This is not what we mean. What we are talking about has a greater effect, not in terms of methods, but in terms of goals. Here we are only comparing the effects of achieving this goal with the effects of achieving that goal.
It must be emphatically pointed out that when we talk about the elimination of the enemy's army, we do not only mean the destruction of the enemy's material force, but also the destruction of the enemy's spiritual force. The two are closely intertwined and inseparable. Especially when we talk about a big annihilating battle, that is, a big victory will inevitably have an impact on other battles, we should see that spiritual factors are the most inspiring and motivate people to fight. The loss of a certain part of spiritual power is extremely easy. Affecting other aspects. Compared with other methods, destroying the enemy’s army is of greater value, but this method also requires people to pay a higher price, and it also has a greater danger in itself. People want to avoid it. These dangers are why other methods are used.
Using the means of destroying the enemy forces will inevitably have to pay a higher price, which is not difficult to understand, because under the premise that all other conditions are the same, the more we want to destroy the enemy's army, the greater the consumption of our own army.
Taking this approach is dangerous, because we hope to achieve greater results, so we know we can’t do it, and instead put ourselves at a greater disadvantage.
Therefore, if other methods are adopted, the cost of success is less, and the risk of failure is less. To adopt this method, one condition must be met, that is, these methods are adopted by both sides at the same time, that is to say, wishful thinking is not feasible. If the opponent chooses to fight on a large scale, then we must use the same method. At this time, everything depends on the result of this annihilating action. In this case, even if all other conditions of our side are the same as those of the other side, we will still be in a disadvantaged position in this operation, because part of our energy and methods have been used in other areas, while the enemy’s power is not. All used in this battle. Two different purposes, if one of them is not subordinate to the other, they will be mutually exclusive. The power used to achieve this purpose cannot be used to achieve the other at the same time; if the warring party decides to fight, he will Convinced that the opponent does not intend to fight, but is seeking other means, then the probability of his victory is very high. It is wise for either party to make decisions when it understands that the other party is the same as itself and does not want to engage in a large-scale battle to seek other means.
The energy and strength we are talking about here have been used in other areas. In addition to destroying the enemy's army, other positive goals that can be pursued in war are not simply resistance to consume the enemy's power. Pure resistance has no positive intention. In the case of pure resistance, its power can only be used to crush the enemy's intentions and cannot produce other influences.
Let us now study the opposite of destroying the enemy's army, that is, preserving our own army. Destroying the enemy's army and preserving one's own army are complementary, they influence each other, and they are two indispensable aspects of the same intention. What we want to discuss is only when one of the two aspects dominates, what will be the impact. Attempts to destroy the enemy’s army have a positive effect, can produce positive effects, and the result can ultimately lead to the defeat of the enemy. The attempt to preserve one's own army has a negative effect. It can crush the enemy's intentions and lead to pure resistance. The result of such resistance can only prolong the duration of military operations to consume the enemy's power.
A war plan with a positive purpose will cause annihilating actions, and a war plan with a negative purpose can only wait for annihilating actions.
As for the extent to which one should and can wait, this involves the nature of offense and defense. This issue will be further elaborated when studying offense and defense. Here we just want to say that waiting should not become unrestricted tolerance. The actions taken while waiting include the elimination of enemy forces that are at war with us. If he thinks that the negative intention is to seek a bloodless way of fighting and not to destroy the enemy's army as the goal, then he is fundamentally wrong. Although, when a negative attempt to dominate, it will prompt people to adopt a bloodless way. However, it is not necessarily suitable to adopt a bloodless method, because the standard of suitability is determined by our conditions and the conditions of the enemy. Therefore, this bloodless method is by no means a natural means when desperately wishing to preserve one's own army. If this method is used improperly, it will destroy one's own army. Many military commanders made this mistake, and the result was ruin. When the negative attempts to dominate, its only function is to delay the decisive battle between the two sides and make people wait patiently for the decisive moment. The result of negative intent is often to postpone the time of military operations. Because time and space are related, it is possible to change the space of military operations as long as conditions permit. Once the delay continues to enter a very unfavorable stage, the negative attempt must be abandoned. As a result, an attempt to eliminate the enemy, which was originally suppressed but not completely rejected, appeared.
In summary, we can draw the conclusion that there are various means to achieve goals in war, that is, to achieve political ends, but fighting is the only means, and all methods to achieve political ends must be resolved by weapons. The highest law of the problem. If the enemy must take military action, we have no choice but to accompany us to the end. Only when it is certain that the opponent will not choose to fight, or the opponent will definitely lose in the battle, we can consider other methods. In short, among the goals pursued in war, the elimination of the enemy's army is always the highest goal.
As for the effects of various other methods in war, we will study it later. Here we only generally admit that it is not impossible to adopt other methods, because there is a distance between reality and ideas, and the characteristics of specific situations are different. Here we have to point out that solving the crisis by bloodshed, that is, defeating the enemy's army, is the "eldest son" of war. When the political goal is small, the motivation is weak, and the tension is not high, the cautious commander will use various methods skillfully and flexibly on the battlefield and in the government, avoiding major conflicts and bloodshed, and using the opponent’s own weaknesses to achieve this. The purpose of peace. If his plan has both a sufficient basis and a certainty of success, then we have no right to blame him. However, we must always remind him to remember that he is walking on a tortuous trail, and he is always attacked by the god of war. He must always pay attention to the enemy's every move, so as not to use his sword when the enemy makes a big fuss. But it can only be challenged with a decorative saber, which is terrible.
Regarding the role of the concept, purpose, and means of war in war, how far and near and far the war is in reality from its original strict concept is vacillating, and at the same time, it is always subject to it like obeying the highest law. All these conclusions, we must keep in mind that we will often refer to them when we study various topics in the future, so that we can correctly understand the relationship between these topics and their special meanings, so that they will not often happen with reality. Big conflicts are not self-contradictory.
Military genius
To engage in any specialized job, to have a very deep attainments, you need to have special gifts in intelligence and emotions. If these endowments are high and can be expressed through extraordinary achievements, then they are called geniuses.
As we all know, the meaning of the word genius is very broad, and the interpretation is not the same. It is very difficult to clarify the essence of some of the meanings. However, we neither call ourselves philosophers nor linguists. Therefore, according to common practice, genius should be understood as an extraordinary spiritual force who is good at certain activities.
In order to further analyze the reasons for this statement and further understand the meaning of the concept of genius, let's briefly talk about the role and value of this spiritual force. Here we cannot only talk about those who have superb special talents and are called geniuses, that is, we cannot only talk about geniuses in a broad sense, because this concept has not yet been clearly defined. We focus on the various comprehensive manifestations of these spiritual forces in military activities, and we can regard these comprehensive manifestations as the essence of military genius. The reason why we call it a comprehensive performance, rather than discussing one aspect of it separately, is because military genius is not just a certain force related to military activities, its performance is a combination of multiple forces, such as courage and wisdom. , Emotions, etc., their role in wars cannot be ignored. Military genius is a harmonious and unified combination of various spiritual forces, of which one kind or another may play a major role, but no one kind of power is a hindrance.
If every officer and soldier are required to have more or less military talents, then the number of our army will be greatly reduced. Because military genius refers to a special manifestation of spiritual power, military genius is only a rare phenomenon among nations that need to cultivate spiritual power in many ways. The more monotonous the activities of a nation, the more likely military activities will occupy an important position in this nation, and the more opportunities for military genius to emerge. However, the wide range of military geniuses does not mean that the quality of geniuses is high, because the quality of military geniuses is also restricted by the overall level of a nation’s intellectual development. We can imagine a savage and militant nation whose martial spirit is much more common among these nations than civilized nations. In a savage and warlike nation, almost everyone possesses the spirit of martial arts, while in a civilized nation, most people are forced to fight as soldiers, and their hearts are desperate for peace. However, there has never been a truly great commander in a barbarian nation. It is very rare to be called a military genius, because a genius requires an intellectual level, and it is impossible for the intelligence to develop in a barbarian nation. . Of course, civilized nations also have a more or less militant tendency. The more people who have a militant tendency, the more people in the army have the spirit of fighting for war. In such a nation, the combination of general martial arts spirit and higher intelligence often results in the most brilliant achievements. The Romans and French are the best proof. Among these nations or other nations that were once famous for their warfare, the greatest commanders often appear in countries where the level of civilization has developed to a higher level.
So, how much role does intelligence play in higher military talent? Now we will discuss this issue in detail.
War is full of dangers, and the first quality a soldier should possess is courage.
Courage is divided into two types: one is the courage to take personal risks, that is, to put one's life and death outside; the other is the courage to be responsible in the face of external pressure or internal pressure. What I want to talk about here is the first one.
There are two kinds of courage to take personal risks: the first is to show an indifferent attitude towards danger, whether it is born so, or because it is not afraid of death, or acquired habits, this kind of courage can be seen under any circumstances. Work is a kind of constant state.
The second is the existence of positive motives, such as courage inspired by honor, patriotism or other emotions. In this case, its performance is not a constant state, but a kind of excited emotion, a kind of feeling.
The above two kinds of courage work differently. The first type of courage is more stable and reliable, because it has become second nature of people and will never be lost; the second type of courage usually requires constant encouragement, with high and low excitement, and ups and downs. Tenacity mainly belongs to the category of the first kind of courage, and boldness mainly belongs to the category of the second kind of courage; the first kind of courage can make reason more sober, and the second kind of courage can sometimes improve reason, sometimes make reason coma, and even make reason. Lost. The combination of the two can become the most perfect and valuable courage.
War is a field full of fatigue. If you don’t want to be overwhelmed by fatigue, you must have good physical and mental strength (whether talented or trained). People with such qualities, coupled with sound intelligence to guide, it is a kind of A very powerful combat tool, this quality is most common among barbaric and semi-civilized nations. If we further study the requirements of war for soldiers, we will find that intelligence is very important, because war is a field full of uncertainty. Three-quarters of the circumstances on which specific actions were based in the war seemed to be hidden in the clouds and mist, seeming to be there or not, and more or less uncertain. Therefore, soldiers must first have keen intelligence in order to discern the truth through accurate and rapid judgments and take correct actions.
Mediocre intelligence can occasionally discern the truth, and extraordinary courage can sometimes make up for the losses caused by miscalculations. However, in most cases, in terms of average results, lack of intelligence will more or less reveal some problems.
Wars are full of chance everywhere. The activities in any field of mankind have not provided such a wide range of activities for contingency as war, and there is no activity that has frequent contact with contingency from all aspects like war. Occasionality increases the uncertainty of various situations and affects the course of events at all times.