Chapter 25 Chapter 22 Grand Strategy

The subject of this book is military strategy, not grand strategy, or, in other words, military policy.In order to fully elaborate on this wide-ranging subject, a separate and large-scale dedicated tome is required, because although grand strategy guides military strategy, some of its principles often conflict with those promoted by military strategy.It is for this reason that I would like to say a few words here about some of the conclusions I have drawn from my research on grand strategy. The purpose of war is to obtain a better peace, which of course is from your own wishes.Therefore, in going to war, you must always keep in mind what you want to pursue afterward.War is the continuation of politics by another means. This is the basis of Clausewitz's definition of war, that is, war is the continuation of this politics throughout the war period and even in peacetime.This truth should never be forgotten.A country, if it has exhausted its strength, it will not be able to continue to carry out its own politics, so it must make its future impossible to imagine.

If you concentrate all your forces in a desperate pursuit of victory, without regard to the consequences of the war, you are bound to wear yourself out too much, and to gain no advantage in later peace.Moreover, the peace established after the war is bound to be extremely unstable, and even the embryo of a new war will soon be born.This has been confirmed time and again by historical experience. If this war is waged by a coalition of several countries, the danger it brings will be even greater.The greater the victory in such wars, the more complicated is the problem of establishing a just and sensible peace.At that time, the appetites of the victors will be great, and since there is no hostile force to restrain them, coupled with differences in views and interests, conflicts will inevitably arise among those former allies.The development of such differences is bound to become more and more acute, because the friendship necessary in times of danger may turn into hostility after the danger is eliminated, and allies in the last war can easily become enemies in the next war.

This leads to a deeper and broader question.Friction often arises between allies, especially when their power is not balanced.In the long history, it is this kind of friction that has led to countless attempts at annexation by force. Stronger countries always want to eat weaker countries.However, history tells us that such mergers actually resulted in one country vying for power over the other.It is a natural tendency to merge small cliques into one big one.However, when force is used to hasten the process, the most common result is the collapse of the project of building a broad political alliance.

Moreover, historical experience furnishes no sufficient evidence that true progress and liberty are most surely secured by a union of several nations.For idealists, this may be something to feel sorry for.In fact, when the union of several countries achieves ideological unity, this unity usually leads to the standardization of ideas, which is harmful to the development of new ideas.If this unity is effected by artifice or force, the collapse of such a union whose members are not united will be inevitable, if I say it bluntly. Life develops amidst contradictions.These contradictions, when tolerated together, can inspire real progress.The reason why they can tolerate and coexist is because they all see that if they do not accommodate each other and coexist peacefully, but try to overwhelm each other, the result will soon turn bad.It is for this reason that the best guarantee for a peace capable of stimulating progress is the maintenance of a mutual check under conditions of balance of power.The principle seems to be the same in both domestic politics and international relations.

In terms of domestic politics, although the British two-party system seems to have more shortcomings than other government systems in theory, in fact, it has demonstrated its superiority with its long history.From the perspective of international relations, as long as the balance of power still exists, a better situation can be maintained.For Europe, however, the balance of power was always vulnerable to disruption, which often led to war.Thus, there is an urgent need to find the right way to consolidate the peace: either mergers or alliances.Alliances are a more promising approach because dynamic scenarios can arise in cooperation.The merger of several countries is likely to create a monopoly of power and make the power fall into the hands of a certain political group.History shows that any monopoly of power, as Lord Eden's famous saying pointed out: Any power can be bought by bribery, and absolute power can be sold absolutely.Because of this danger, it is difficult for the alliance itself to guarantee that there will be no accidents.Special attention must therefore be given to maintaining a relationship of mutual checks and balances of power in order to preserve limited unity.

The study of grand strategy against the background of the whole history leads to another conclusion: From a practical point of view, general strategy theory must adapt to the general political nature of the country.It should be noted that the goals pursued by aggressive and non-aggressive countries are different, so when they promote their own politics, the means (methods) they adopt will also be different. If this difference is noted, it is easy to see that the pure theory of strategy, outlined in Chapter 19 above, is more suitable for a state whose object is conquest.For peoples who seek only to preserve their own frontiers, and above all their own security and their own way of life, this theory of strategy must be modified accordingly.The characteristic of aggressive states is that they are not satisfied with their current situation, they always want to achieve their goals by victory, and therefore do not hesitate to take great risks to seek war.The situation of non-aggressive countries is completely different. As long as they try to contain the aggressor, force it to give up the intention of conquest, and convince the other party that it is not beneficial to use guns and swords, they have achieved their goals.Their victory, in fact, is to break the winning plans of the aggressive countries.Because of excessive greed, aggressive countries often ask for trouble, and sometimes use up their own strength so that they are finally unable to withstand other enemies, or because of excessive expansion and tension, they cannot overcome internal crises.In war far more nations are defeated by self-exhaustion than by foreign attack.

Through the analysis and measurement of the above factors, it can be immediately understood that for a non-aggressive country, the strategy it needs is only a strategy suitable for its own limited purpose.It can take the most economical way to protect itself against foreign aggression now and in the future.At first glance, defense is the most economical way of conducting war.Thus, it may lead to a long-term concept of position defense, but historical experience warns us that it is very dangerous to rely exclusively on this method.The best way to save troops and achieve victory is to combine defensive and offensive actions. This kind of offensive and defensive actions based on high mobility can guarantee a rapid and powerful counterattack.

The Eastern Roman Empire can serve as an example.At that time, it adopted a strategy of active defense.This strategy was carefully formulated and was the basis of its military policy.The lifespan of Eastern Rome can last for such a long time, and adopting such a strategy is probably a fact that can explain the problem.The United Kingdom is also an example.From the sixteenth century onwards and throughout the nineteenth century, it adopted a strategy based on sea power in all its wars, more instinct than reason.In the wars of this period, Britain's strength was continuously improved with the growth of its national power, but its enemy countries, because of their eagerness to win the victory, exhausted their national strength in the war and suffered defeat one by one.This fact alone is enough to justify the value of this strategy.

After long and destructive wars, especially after the Thirty Years' War, the belligerent countries exhausted each other's national strength, and finally got to the point of exhaustion.Thus, in the eighteenth century, politicians finally realized that they had to restrain their ambition and desire to achieve their goals through war.As a result of this recognition, there has arisen a tendency to take limited military action, that is, to try to avoid excessive losses that would adversely affect the post-war prospects.On the other hand, if both sides feel that victory is elusive, it will be easier to accept peace negotiations.The ambitions and desires of the politicians on both sides often drive them far away from their goals. When the peace treaty is concluded, they will inevitably find that their country is not only not stronger than before the war, but has been weakened.However, these politicians always know how to rein in the brink, and they will not bring the country to the point of complete failure.So, the most satisfactory peaceful settlements, even for the stronger side, are those that result from peaceful negotiations rather than decisive military action.

This awareness of the limited scale of warfare had been developing until it was thwarted by the French Revolution.The revolution brought new figures into power, all novice at running a state.The Directorate and Consulate of France, as well as its successor Napoleon, have fought war after war in pursuit of a lasting peace for twenty years.Their frantic pursuit not only failed to achieve their goals, but completely consumed France's strength, so that it was inevitable to collapse in the end. The collapse of Napoleon's empire once again proved the correctness of the original lesson.But this lesson is still clouded and obscured by the echoes of the Napoleonic myth.This lesson was later forgotten, so the mistake was repeated in the war of 1914-1918.Yet even with the painful lessons of World War I, politicians of the Second World War were not wiser.

War is an act against reason and a means to use force to solve problems when negotiations fail to achieve satisfactory results.Even so, the implementation of war still needs to be controlled by reason. Only in this way can the goal of war be achieved.This is so for several reasons: 1. Although fighting is a physical act, its guidance is a psychological activity.The better your strategy, the better your chances of winning, and the less expensive you will be. 2. On the contrary, the more you waste your power ineffectively, the greater the danger you will face.Even if you finally win, you will be unable to protect your interests after the battle due to excessive power consumption. 3. The more savage and cruel the method you use, the stronger the enemy's desire for revenge will be, and the resistance will naturally be firm, so the greater the resistance you have to overcome.Therefore, when the two sides are evenly matched, it is more sensible to avoid taking extreme measures, so as not to further promote the unity of the enemy's army and civilians, and to arouse their enthusiasm for supporting their leaders. 4. The more tenaciously you use the means of conquest to obtain the conditions of peace you desire, the greater and more difficulties you will encounter on the way forward. 5. After you achieve your military goal, the more demands you make on the defeated country, the more troubles will be caused afterwards, and the other party will try to use force to change the situation you established. Power, so to speak, is a magic circle, or more accurately, a spiral coil.Therefore, for the control and use of power, there must be extremely prudent and reasonable calculations.From this it follows that if war has been waged against reason, it must be brought back to life at every stage of the struggle, i.e., controlled by reason. Fighting spirit is essential to win on the battlefield.However, with this fierce horse, be sure to pull on the reins very, very tight.Even in such circumstances, the man who has always kept his cool head has the upper hand over those who are blind and impulsive.Those who are blind and impulsive must always be controlled.A politician can't let his will be swayed by his emotions, and he can't make himself lose control.If so, he will not be able to be the leader of the country, and he will not be able to take on the important task of putting the country's security at risk. The so-called victory, its true meaning should be to achieve a consolidated peace after the war, and the material living conditions of the people have improved compared with before the war.To achieve such a victory, there may be two ways: either a quick battle and quick results; or a protracted war, but the use of troops should be economized according to the country's resources.The ends must match the means.If the chance of winning such a victory has been lost, no sensible statesman will miss the favorable moment of peace.A peace, a peace made by both sides because there is no other way out, or a peace in which both sides recognize that each other still has strength, is really much better than a peace that is reached after both sides have lost.This is often the basis for a lasting peace after a war. It is sensible to risk war in order to maintain peace; it is contrary to reason to risk attrition in war in order to obtain victory.This conclusion seems to contradict the habits of ordinary people, but it has already been proved by experience.It only makes sense to keep fighting the war if you see that there are really good opportunities for a good outcome.That is to say, the war can only be continued if it is seen that the prospect of peace will compensate people for the loss and suffering suffered in the war.If the past experience is studied in depth, a conclusion can be drawn: if the various countries participating in the war can use the respite in the struggle to adopt negotiation methods to solve the disputed issues, it is not necessary to continue the war until the war is won. If they win, then they may be closer to their expected goals. History has proved that in many cases, a favorable peace treaty can only be concluded if the politicians on both sides have a deep understanding of people's psychology and continue to test the peace treaty.It often happens that politicians seem to be fighting at home and partisanship at home, with each side refusing to back down for fear of appearing weak.Even when one party is finally willing to settle, the language they use is often so strong that it remains difficult for the other party to accept.This is partly due to the influence of pride and obstinacy, and partly to a false feeling, and partly to a misunderstanding, which takes such an otherwise common action as a sign of weakness.Indeed, the other side's concessions may be just the proof that it has reverted to sound thinking.As a result, the once-in-a-thousand-year opportunity for peace talks often slips away, and the conflict continues to develop, eventually causing both sides to suffer.If the two opposing sides continue to live under the same zenith, then it is of no benefit to persist in fighting for a long time.In modern warfare, this situation is of course much more serious than domestic partisan struggles, because after the development of industry, the destinies of all countries have been closely linked and are closely related to each other.It is for this reason that the responsibility of statesmen is all the greater. In their pursuit of the spectacle of victory, they must never lose sight of the prospects for the consolidation of peace after the war. When the two sides are evenly matched and neither side can hope to win, a statesman should learn to be wise and be able to use psychological factors strategically.There is a simple and crude principle of strategy, and this is this: When the enemy occupies strong positions, and the capture of these positions requires great sacrifices, you should give them a way of retreat, because this will weaken the enemy. One of the best ways to resist.This principle applies equally to politics and military affairs, and especially to war.In order to win, it is necessary to prepare the enemy with a ladder that he can walk down automatically. Another question may arise here: the above conclusion is drawn from the study of the war history of the so-called civilized countries; whether it is also applicable to the revived purely predatory wars or wars in which religion and plunder are mixed? ?Examples of the former are the attacks of barbarians on the Roman Empire, examples of the latter are the wars waged by fanatical Muslims.In this type of war, any negotiated peace is highly unreliable.Historical experience proves extremely convincingly that the extent to which various countries trust each other, the extent to which they promote each other's respective interests.However, some countries may not attach importance to moral obligations, but instead attach importance to material strength. Therefore, as long as the opponent shows extremely strong strength, it is enough to contain it and make it dare not challenge rashly.This is exactly the same as the relationship between people.Hooligans or gangsters are often not easy to provoke those who are almost as powerful as them, and when they encounter opponents who are stronger than themselves, they dare not act rashly. Their resistance attitude at this time is not as good as they always are Good people are so determined. Whether it is an individual or a country, if you want to deal with aggressive opponents by bribery, or in modern popular language, if you want to deal with them by appeasement, that is really naive.Because this can only stimulate his greedy appetite, the higher the price you buy, the higher his worth will be.However, the aggressors are bullying after all.Due to the role of superstitious power, aggressive countries are always afraid of opponents who are stronger than themselves.This has a certain restrictive effect on the aggressors.However, those desperate religious fanatics are exceptions.Religious fanaticism should not be confused with aggression. For such barbaric enemies, although it is not easy to establish a real peaceful relationship with them, it is not too difficult to induce them to accept a state of truce.It will take less effort than trying to destroy them, because if you want to destroy them, they will also show the courage to fight tenaciously like all other human beings. History furnishes abundant illustrations of the failures of many civilized nations, less through invasion by enemies, and more through internal divisions and the draining power of war.The state of long-term delay is extremely painful for the country or the individual.This kind of mental pain may lead them to commit suicide.But it is better to procrastinate than to exhaust yourself in the pursuit of victory, which is better.In addition, a temporary truce can also give oneself a chance to recover and develop its strength.Of course, doing so requires a high degree of vigilance, which in turn puts the country in a state of tension for a long time. Peace-loving countries may also subject themselves to unnecessary threats.This is because they are different from aggressive countries. Once they rise up to wage war, they tend to carry the war to the end, so they tend to pursue extremes.Aggressive states wage war with the intention of subjugating others, and often stop when they find that the other party is too strong to be defeated.Only those fighters who are driven by emotion rather than reason will stubbornly persist in fighting to the end.Therefore, even if such people do not suffer direct defeat, they often fail to achieve their goals.You know, the morale of the barbarians can only be weakened after a truce, because war will only increase their morale, like adding fuel to the fire.