On Humanity, Brutality and Mercy

An ancient text on strategy reminds us of the importance of peace in the worst conflicts

The book “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu is a remarkable text in many ways. It dates back about 2,500 years, and has remained a classic and guide ever since.

War is hell, and that is an understatement. Right now, the world seemed to be gripped by “war fever,” defined as

“dangerous ways of thinking that justify the unnecessary use of military force, evade responsibility, minimize perceived consequences, and dehumanize enemies, leading to popular support for national actions that are later regretted.”

There are many lessons in Sun-Tzu that seem counterintuitive, because he considers winning without fighting - using spies and strategems - to be far superior even than winning a hundred battle. The costs of war were always great. Wherever the army went, prices rose, and long seiges and long wars benefitted no one.

The other was a surprising humanity and recognition that the discipline and authority that exists in the army was fundamentally different from the ways that civil authorities should act.

He opposed the idea that the enemy should be destroyed: rather, if you captured enemy soldiers, you should treat them mercifully, and encourage them to join your side.

The other was that there are times of mercy.

This is from a translation of the book by Rudyard Griffith.

We can appreciate the originality of Sun Tzu's thought only if we are aware of the qualitative differences which distinguished warfare of the fifth and fourth centuries from that of the earlier period. Until about 500 B.c. war was in a sense ritu-alistic. Seasonal campaigns were conducted in accordance with a code generally accepted. Hostilities were prohibited during the months devoted to planting and harvesting. In winter the peasants hibernated in their mud huts; it was too cold to fight.

In summer it was too hot. In theory at least, war was interdicted during the months of mourning which followed the death of a feudal lord.' In battle it was forbidden to strike elderly men or further injure an enemy previously wounded.

The human-hearted ruler did not 'massacre cities', 'ambush armies, or "keep the army over the season' , nor did a righteous prince stoop to deceit; he did not take unfair advantage of his adversary.*

When King Chuang of Ch'u laid siege to the capital of Sung in 594 B.c. his army began to run short of provisions.

To Tzu-fan, his Minister of War, he said: 'If we exhaust these supplies without reducing the city we are going to withdraw and return home.' He then ordered Tzu-fan to climb the ramp thrown up against the wall to observe the besieged.

The Prince of Sung sent his minister, Hua Yuan, to the mound to intercept him, and the following conversation ensued:

Tzu-fan said, 'How are things with your state?' Hua Yuan said, ‘We are exhausted! We exchange our children and eat them, splitting and cooking the bones.’

Tzu-fan said, 'Alas! Extreme straits indeed! However, I have heard that in besieged states they gag their horses when they give them grain and send out the fat ones to meet the enemy. Now, how is it that you, Sir, are so frank?'

Hua Yuan said, 'I have heard that the superior man, seeing another's distress, has compassion on him; while the mean man, seeing another's distress, rejoices in it. I saw that you seemed to be a superior man, and that is why I was so frank.'

Tzu-fan said, 'It is so. May you exert yourself. Our army has only seven days' rations.'

Tzu-fan reported to King Chuang. King Chuang said, 'How are they?'

Tzu-fan said, 'They are exhausted. They exchange children and eat them, splitting and cooking the bones.”

King Chuang said, 'Alas! Extreme straits indeed. Now all we have to do is take them and return.'

Tzu-fan said, 'We cannot do it. I have already told them that our army for its part has only seven days' rations.'

King Chuang was angry and said, 'I sent you to observe them. Why did you tell them?'

Tzu-fan said, 'If a state as small as Sung still has a subject who does not practice deceit, how can Ch'u lack them? This is why I told him.' King Chuang said, 'Nevertheless we shall presently just take them and return.'

Tzu-fan said, 'Let Your Highness stay here; I will just go home, if I may.'

The King said, 'If you return, leaving me, with whom shall I stay here? I shall return as you wish.' Whereupon he went back with his army.

The superior man approves their making peace themselves. Hua Yuan told Tzu-fan the truth and succeeded thereby in raising the siege and keeping intact the fortune of the two states.'

Philosophers and kings distinguished between righteous and unrighteous war.

There are other stories throughout history of people who prevented some kind of mass destruction.

Stanislav Petrov: The man who may have saved the world -

on 26 September 1983, the world was saved from potential nuclear disaster.

In the early hours of the morning, the Soviet Union's early-warning systems detected an incoming missile strike from the United States. Computer readouts suggested several missiles had been launched. The protocol for the Soviet military would have been to retaliate with a nuclear attack of its own.

But duty officer Stanislav Petrov - whose job it was to register apparent enemy missile launches - decided not to report them to his superiors, and instead dismissed them as a false alarm.

This was a breach of his instructions, a dereliction of duty. The safe thing to do would have been to pass the responsibility on, to refer up.

But his decision may have saved the world.

We are living in a very dangerous and uncertain time, because more and more people feel powerless, which means they feel defenseless. That powerlessness may be directly related to their economic state - that they are losing what little control they may once have had. I believe that this is what is driving people towards “strong” rulers - they quite literally promise security against the other, though quite notably, they don’t usually do it by empowering the citizenry.

There are certain lines that I have read over the years that always stay with me, which is that moment where two people are able to share their humanity and so prevent more pain, suffering and death for their people.

When people do terrible things, it may be that it is an act so alien and vile that we compare it to “an animal” or say that it is inhuman. This is reflection of our moral conscience, because we believe that we would never do such a thing, or justify such an act.

The 20th century showed us that the defining feature of humans as a species is that we keep building machines and technology so powerful that, while they allow us to take incredible risks, which, if they go wrong, can create more damage than we have the resources to recover from.

I have said - many times - that all this madness is being driven by economics, because the money relations we have with one another are the way we navigate the world, and that the economy is not working properly anymore.

As Churchill said, “It’s always better to Jaw-Jaw than to War-War.”

-30-

DFL