Any avid readers or thinkers up for discussion on Sun Tzu's Art?

we're actually creating a reading list. For discussion. I'd recommend suggesting it there :)

I've taken care of adding it to the list.

I'd still be up for discussing it, and I think that this is a fine place to discuss it. For those who choose to read it later, they can always jump in on this conversation.

My initial thought is that such military philosophy is still quite applicable in today's world, despite the advances in technology and the revolutions in warfare.

I think that most western powers would benefit greatly from infusing more Taoist concepts into endeavors of both diplomacy and force.

^^Indeed. Imagine wars won through diplomacy... I believe the last US endeavor was handed a diplomatic attempt from the Iraqi part, but was futile - obviously. I can post a link to this fact.

It as well has many lessons on conducting competition in the corporate world we now live in - as well military applications.

Here are a few passages that could be observed from a current war - Iraq vs. Us.
Sun Tzu - followed by observation:

Iraqis:
"Therefore victory in war is not repetitous, but adapts its form endlessly" - Iraqi insurguents (or urban guerilla - as I call it) has adapted from direct outposts to guerilla tactics.
"Therefore when you induce others to construct formation while you yourself are formless, then you are concentrated while the opponent is divided." - Iraqi guerillas are now formless, while the US has distinct formations.

Iraqis and US Forces:
"In battle, confrontation is done directly, victory is gained by surprise." - Both sides are applying this 'sneak attack' tactic.

US Forces:
"So, the important thing in a military operation is victory, not persistance." - Have they planned the possibility of urban guerilla warfare - it would seem not, yet they persist.
"Those who use the military skillfully do not raise troops twice and do not provide food three times." - Gulf War? The empoverishing and constantly growing war debt?

A mere few examples and observations, but intriguing none-the-less.

Here is one which can be applied to the corporate, or even judicial, or even just in debate or sports -
"A skilled attack is one against which opponents do not know how to defend; a skilled defense is one which opponents do not know how to attack. Therefore those skilled in defense are not so because of fortress walls.
This is why high walls and deep moats do not guarantee security, while strong armor and effective weapons do not guarantee strength. If opponents want to hold firm, attack where they are unprepaired; if opponents want to establish a battlefront, appear where they do not expect you."

Now I understand that Sun Tzu is often read in military academies and such, so I can't speak for how it is employed/understood in a combative sense. But I think that the US particularly is awful at applying Sun Tzu warfare tactics/philosophy, at least in diplomacy.

We play with our cards flat on the table, bullying and pushing and being the aggressor, rather than waiting, hiding, surreptitiously planning and bluffing.

Anyone who's read it, I wonder what your thoughts are on the add-ons from the other generals after Sun. In my opinion, only Zhuge Liang actually had things to add of relevance. It seems all the other generals were just either repeting Sun Tzu, or misunderstanding a concept.

Anyway, just wondering if anymore of you on here acutally read the book yet...