Here are links to the Reading Guides for each text:

Reading Guide: Machiavelli's The Prince
NOTE: Discussion of this text will take place primarily on Tuesday 18 February 2003

Reading Guide: Sun Tzu's The Art of War
NOTE: Discussion of this text will take place primarily on Thursday 20 February 2003
 

Response #4:
Your next response will be distributed to you in class on Thursday, and will be due on Tuesday 25 February.  This allows you more time to complete your readings and offer more thoughtful responses.  According to our updated syllabus, you will turn this in on Thursday 20 February 2003.

Your response will be customized: one for Machiavbelli's book, and the other for Sun Tzu's.  If you have chosen to read both texts, then you must select one or the other for your response.
 

Research Essay and Conferences:
Information about both will be distributed in class this week.  You will be incorporating one of these two texts into your research essay (or both, if you are ambitious!).  Please don't worry about the research essay just yet -- it isn't due until April 15th.
 

Test 1:
Your first test will be returned to you on Thursday 20 February 2003.  Several students still need to arrange make-ups with me before Thursday, since I will make answers available upon the test's return.
 
 
 

Thursday 20 February 2003

TOP

 

I wanted to take the discussion into a different direction today so that students would be able to see other possible topic areas beyond warfare.  I started with some questions about human nature: Why do we fight?  Is this a natural behavior?  Is all conflict bad?  Why are most conflicts with those whom we love the most?

Many students recalled stories from their childhoods.  We discussed playground conflicts as well as sibling rivalries.  We told stories about April Fools' Day jokes and clever pranks that we pulled on our friends for a laugh or two.  Even though many of these early behaviors were not violent or harmful, we did them for a laugh or to witness the reactions of others.  A few students who work with young children recalled how these toddlers and small children can be ruthless and possessive with communal toys, and how dominant children become leaders for others to immitate.  Perhaps conflict is an inate part of being human.  Perhaps too we learn the most about ourselves as human beings by participating in conflicts.  Of course, playground conflicts are very different from war, but they are all related in strange ways to each other.

I also mentioned that every story contains a conflict.  Sometimes these conflicts force a character to battle against another person, group, or organization.  Sometimes we fight over ideologies and property, and sometimes against nature and ourselves.  If every story centers around a conflict, does this mean that we need conflict?  Do we enjoy it?  Do we learn from it?  After all, a story is considered to be good when a hero (protagonist) rises above and defeats the opponent.  We become inspired by these heroes, who eventually become role models, legends, and teachers.  Without conflict, we cannot become great.  Ironically, we also cannot exist as peacefully as we would like because of conflict.

We face conflicts every minute.  Our alarm clocks force us into a world of dualities that we'd rather not face (at least not at six in the morning).  We fight with our snooze buttons, then the traffic, then the parking lot, then ....  We battle hunger, distraction, our emotions, our fears, etc.  We get together with friends and talk about our conflicts and struggles, sometimes with our professors, our parents, or the cops that gave you those nasty tickets.  As soon as we conquer one conflict, we have to face another, and another, and another.  Yet, life would not be the same if we had no conflict.  How would we understand our limits?  How would we grow and learn from others?

I briefly addressed a simple diagram that comes from the 20th century philosopher Martin Buber, who created an interesting model for human behavior called the "I-Thou" theory.  Buber uses these Biblical terms to address the point that human beings either see the world around them as either a paer of themselves (as an "I") or as something other than ourselves (the "Thou").  I drew a small circle on the board, and I placed it inside a larger circle.  Inside the smaller circle I wrote the word "I" and I wrote the word "Thou" inside the larger circle, but not inside the smaller one (imagine a donut).

Buber theorizes that all humans make decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of others based on whether or not we see each other as an "I" or a "Thou."  For example, we see ourselves as the ultimate and original "I."  Our bodies and minds belong to us, so we take care of them and treasure them each day.  Our family and friends often fall into this category too, since we love and support them.  But stranger is often viewed as a "Thou," since we may not see ourselves in others as easily.  We will help a friend in need, but would we do the same for a stranger?  If you would sacrifice your life for a stranger, then you are viewing humanity as an "I," but if you would rather not get involved in someone else's problems, then you must view them as "Thous."

Objects can also become part of the "I" mentality.  Your car is somewhat of an extension of yourself, so most of us would view our cars, houses, and other possessions as part of the "I."  If you get really angry when someone dents your car or touches your purse, then you will defend that stuff that you consider an "I" against the other person (the "Thou").  When a person tosses his cigarette butt out of his car window, he therefore views the environment (the Earth) as a "Thou," but an environmentalist would not do this, because he sees the world as an extension of himself and all life -- an "I."

Ultimately, Buber contemplates that the goal of humanity is to eventually view everything as an "I" and nothing as a "Thou," meaning that you would view everything as an interconnected part of your life.  If we all took this approach, there might not ever be warfare again, or racism, discrimination, or theft, etc.  When we begin the Eastern unit next week, we will see that the Eastern philosophies are predicated on the assumption that all life is the same, regardless of its current form.  Westerners will see just the opposite -- that life is something to be conquered, dominated, and used for its resourceful purposes (such as cutting down a tree to make a table).  I really didn't spend this much time in class on this, but I think that it was an interesting construct to show the class on the dawn of our unit on the ancient East.

We also discussed The Art of War.  Some important ideas from this text follow:

On pages 42-43, Sun Tzu argues that all war is based on deception.  He discusses dozens of military strategies that serve as examples of this.  Our own military wears camouflage fatigues to blend into the forests.  The U.S. attacked Iraq in 1991 under the veil of darkness (the New Moon).  Many famous military tactics involve ambushes, espionage, and surprise attacks, all of which are addressed in The Art of War.  If all war is based on deception, however, is this in violation of our own morality that teaches us that lies and deceit is sinful?  Didn't many of us get bothered by the idea that the serpent (the great Deceiver) in the Garden of Eden was not evil?  If deception is evil, then why have we told thousands of lies, exaggerated the truth when recalling a story from our childhoods, and put on our act every day so that we can get along in society?  It appears that decsption is as much a part of humanity as anything else.  No wonder it works so well in combat.

Page 48 introduced an interesting counterpoint to Machiavelli's ideas about attacking and holding terrirories.  Whereas Machiavelli told us that the only true waty to keep a city that has been overtaken is to destroy it, Sun Tzu says otherwise.  Tzu claims that a country or town should be taken intact, with as little destruction as possible.  We discussed whether or not this was a better idea than Machiavelli's, and we concluded that it all depended on the circumstances.  Machiavelli understood Western warfare well, but this differs from the Eastern mentalities that we will start to examine next week.  Should the U.S. try to remove Saddam with or without leveling the city of Baghdad?  Each author advises us differently.

Sun Tzu also suggests that defense is just as important as is offense.  In fact, he may prioritize the defensive side more than the offensive side, since the offensive forces can be used to force the enemies into defensive postures, which can be capitalized on during an attack.  Sun Tzu warns repeatedly against biting off more than we can chew.  On page 52, Tzu instructs us that security of a region requires a strong defense, but defeating an enemy requires a better offense.  However, if the offense can maneuver itself in such a way that the enemies' defenses must be constantly readjusted, then the offense can gain the advantage on the battlefield.

On page 56, Tzu writes that simulated disorder really reflects perfect discipline.  In other words, lie about how strong you are, then attack the opponents in ways that they do not expect.  The United States played this game with the Soviet Union during the Cold War -- each side boasted about the number of nuclear weapons that they possessed.  Both sides exaggerated so that the other side appeared to be weaker.  However, if both sides really had 3,000 nuclear weapons, then why did they need any more?  That is one reason that the Cold War was stuck at stalemate for so long, until the financial burden of maintaining the monstrous defense budget finally crippled the Russian economy, leading to the collapse of the Cold War.  Sun Tzu would have applauded these tactics (although Machiavelli may have wanted to actually drop a few of these bombs!).

Finally, Sun Tzu instructs us that a skillful military tactician should behave like the shuai-jan, a poisonous snake in China that has a stinger on its tail.  Attacking the head is a bad idea, since the tail can attack you.  Attacking the tail isn't any better since the snake can still use its fangs.  Attacking the middle simply puts you into a position to be attacked from both ends.  Much like a game of chess, every move is both offensive and defensive.  Even if a battle is lost, the war should be able to be won if an army has weapons or troops available in a variety of places.

I will post updated averages that include the test by Friday afternoon.  If you have submitted your code name, then you will be able to see your averages beginning this weekend until the end of the semester.  If you would like to participate, just ask me for an application.

I distributed Response #4 today.  The questions pertain to both The Prince and The Art of War.  It is due Tuesday 25 February 2003.  We will return to our regular response schedule as is indicated by the syllabus.

We also signed up for conference times today.  If you missed today's class, please contact me about arranging a 30-minute conference to discuss your research essay topics.  I am conducting conferences starting next week through March 21st.
 

Today's Handouts:
Reading Guide: The Ramayana
Response #4: The Prince or The Art of War
Research Essay Topic Planner
 

Due Next Time: 
Response #4
Chapters 1-2 in The Ramayana
 
 

Tuesday 18 February 2003

TOP

 

We also discussed Machiavelli's The Prince.  We tied the ideas presented in this text to those of the United States government and military as we face a likely war with Iraq.  Some students agreed with U.S. military intervention in the Middle East, with or without allies.  Others were against a unilateral strike due to the potential for killing innocent civilians, destabilizing the region, and losing the support of age-old allies.  We discussed whether or not certain war tactics are effective.  We addressed not only U.S. military tactics, but also those conducted by France, Germany, the U.N., Saddam Hussein, and North Korea.  I wanted to give every student a chance to discuss this topic and to sort out public opinion on the issue.  Students seemed to be more in favor of a U.S. military strike in Iraq in my 8:00 class, while most students in my 9:30 section were against unilateral invasion.

I also shared tidbits of information that I have read over the last several months (and years).  We addressed media bias and propaganda.  We also touched upon the moves by Germany, Belgium, and france to avoid war, with or without the United Nations.  Many students (30-40%) knew someone in the U.S. military who is currently stationed abroad, mostly in the Persian Gulf, and this means that many of us have a stake in the outcome of this conflict.  No student voiced support for Saddam Hussein, but we were divided as to which approach might be best.  I encourage everyone to continue to educate yourself on this conflict, as well as related ones, especially the troublesome attitudes voiced recently by North Korea.  We'll continue this dialogue on Thursday when we bring The Art of War into the discussion.

Issues that we discussed from The Prince include the following:

Machiavelli asserts that the prince (leader) should become the ruler of less powerful states while weakening the more powerful ones (page 4).  This appears to be the U.S. strategy with Iraq.  Perhaps the U.S. plans on occupying this nation (see the 1992 Cheney-Wolfowitz report) to leverage the oil prices in the region, causing the surrounding oil-producing nations to buckle under the pressure.

Machiavelli also contends that the only way to really hold a city (or state) for the long term is to destroy it (page 11).  Apparently this is also the plan by the United States.  Early reports suggest that the U.S. will attack Iraq between the dates of March 4 and March 12, during the New Moon, using a blitzkrieg of an estimated 800-8,000 missiles that will essentially destroy Baghdad, perhaps causing upwards of a half million casualties or injuries.  Establishing democracy in this nation might prove to be difficult, since three dominant ethnic groups (the Sunni Muslims, Shi'ite Muslims, and Kurds) all despise one another.

Machiavelli also claims that a leader should strive to be feared rather than loved (pages 43-44).  Machiavelli suggests that love can waver, fickle like the weather, but fear is constant.  By using fear, a leader will be able to control his people and his interests more consistently.  Saddam Hussein has used this tactic masterfully.  He has intimidated his people to such a point that Hussein received 100% of the "vote" in this past year's election.  Those who refused to vote were executed.  Likewise, anyone who voted differently were removed as well.  Fear has worked to keep the Iraqi people at bay, too afraid to lash out.  If the U.N. cannot effectively use diplomacy (12 years of lukewarm effectiveness), then what other options are available?

On page 60, Machiavelly explains that a leader should always state his support or opposition to another state.  George W. Bush has repeatedly stated that "You are either with us or against us" in the War on Terror.  In recent weeks, France and Germany have been outspoken against war in Iraq, causing the U.S. government to retaliate with verbal jabs and economic boycotts (Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has recently called these nations "Old" Europe, implying weakness and insignificance, and members of Bush's administration have also referred to the French as "weasels").  Is there no room for neutrality?  What does this say about Switzerland and Japan, who have constitutions demanding pacifism?  What about American war protestors -- are these peole also "anti-American" because they are "against" Bush?  Words indeed can be very powerful.

I hope to continue these interesting conversations on Thursday by referring to The Art of War.
 

I have opted to give you Response #4 on Thursday, to be due next week Tuesday.  This deviates from the syllabus, but I think that it will be in everyone's best interests to do so.
.

Today's Handouts:
Research Essay: War and Human Conflict
Reading Guide: Machiavelli's The Prince  (This is the same handout that was made available online last week)
Reading Guide: Sun Tzu's The Art of War  (This is the same handout that was made available online last week)
 

Due Next Time: 
Sun Tzu's The Art of War
(NOTE: Once again, Response #4 will be distributed to you on Thursday, and it will be due on Tuesday 25 February 2003)