Beijing’s Doctrine on the Conduct of “Irregular Forms of Warfare”

[orange dave]

the usefulness of Sun-Tzu very much depends on your understanding of what Bing-Fa actually means ("Soldiers Methods" or "Strategy". - Certainly not War)

Well, yes, my point exactly. The interesting part about Chinese strategy is that they often try to bundle the strategy and the propaganda - including sometimes the philosophy about how a country should be run - all up into one. By studying the strategy, you can get a more subtle sense of the logic behind the propaganda. The propaganda is important when you're thinking about questions like "would China sabotage its own financial interests to harm the US?" For any country to do such a thing, propaganda would have to be the central feature of the operation.

(BTW, Bing Fa doesn't mean "strategy." "Soldiers' methods" is a good literal translation. I believe originally it was just called Sun Zi, after the author, until somebody decided it needed a real name.)

If you've read Clausewitz, you can drop "Unrestricted Warfare" in the bin. I actually gave my copy away, as it took up valuable space on the shelf. The .pdf is good enough.

You read something like this as a primary document - in terms of what's missing, not just what's present. Whether or not it's useful for other situations as well is secondary. For instance, there's no mention of 'soft power' at all in Unrestricted Warfare, even though that would fit squarely into its logic of non-technology based power. One would guess, based on its track record and popularity, that UW has the ear of Chinese strategists, so you can make conclusions from there.

[William F. Owen]

BTW, Bing Fa doesn't mean "strategy." "Soldiers' methods" is a good literal translation. I believe originally it was just called Sun Zi, after the author, until somebody decided it needed a real name.

Well aware, the point is, in the context he writes, "Soldiers Methods" is explicitly "Strategy" - the use of force to attain a political goal. I former PLA Colonel, I met in London, assured me that no-one in the PLA ever refers to the book as the "The Art of War." - and that the Griffith translation has substantial errors. He recommended the RL Wing translation as being the most accurate.

[orange dave]

One more thing. As I mentioned earlier, asymmetric warfare is only a small part of UW, being just one of eight points mentioned in the conclusion. Another one of the eight is minimal consumption. This is important because, as I see it, it's North Korea's most important strategy against the US. I was wondering if there are any Western theorists that address this aspect of warfare - which is obviously more complicated than just describing it, because there are problems like how you sell these sorts of policies to the people, and so on. I'm asking because I don't know; I might be proven wrong on this point.

[William F. Owen]

One more thing. As I mentioned earlier, asymmetric warfare is only a small part of UW, being just one of eight points mentioned in the conclusion. Another one of the eight is minimal consumption. This is important because, as I see it, it's North Korea's most important strategy against the US.

What do you "asymmetric warfare?" and "UW?" I do not believe either of these descriptions are either accurate, true or useful.

As concerns "minimal consumption," would this more accurately described as "economy of force", as in the many western nations so-called "Principles of War." - another idea I do not buy into anyway.

I was wondering if there are any Western theorists that address this aspect of warfare - which is obviously more complicated than just describing it, because there are problems like how you sell these sorts of policies to the people, and so on. I'm asking because I don't know; I might be proven wrong on this point.

What aspect? Lots of people claim to have insights in Asymmetric Warfare and UW, but 99% are paper thin and melt like mist in sun, when subject to academic rigour.
Selling policies would not really be an area of warfare in my book. I think there a lot of people trying to make this all appear very complicated, because it makes them look smart and gets them consultancy.

Sorry if this is not answering the exam question, but as bear of small brain, I'm not sure I may have understood your question correctly.

[slapout9]

Selling policies would not really be an area of warfare in my book. I think there a lot of people trying to make this all appear very complicated, because it makes them look smart and gets them consultancy.

Small Wars quote of the week material