Opponents Defeat Themselves
The Art of War 10.2:31-14
This post continues our project explaining each stanza of Sun Tzu’s work. The English translation and Chinese transliterations are from my award-winning book, The Art of War and The Ancient Chinese Revealed.
Due to our member’s generous support, we will send all our articles to all subscribers. To enjoy my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
This article discusses the ninth stanza of the second section of Chapter 10 of The Art of War. This chapter’s general topic is the six types of terrain on which we compete. This stanza summarizes the previous stanzas of this section, which focus on the six flaws in organizations that arise from leadership weaknesses. This stanza looks at these ideas from a different angle.
This post is public so feel free to share it.
The purpose of this stanza is to suggest that we can predict what others will do based upon what we know about their leaders’ weaknesses.
The Six Weaknesses
<All> <these> <six> <things>
You must know all about these six weaknesses.
What matters in competition is not the size or other characteristics of the competitive forces involved. It is their positioning on the competitive terrain. Some armies can be outmaneuvered, especially on unobstructed terrain (see this article) where competitors can move in any direction that they desire.
The competitive positions that require the most discipline are on entangling terrain (see this article). Some armies are too lax because their managers don’t instill discipline in their people.
There is one type of terrain where we don’t want to fall down: the slippery slope of supporting positions (see this article). Organizations hold a supporting positions because their work is supported by a mountain of customers. Organizations that take these customers for granted will fall down.
Some general do not understand the competitive battles within their organizations. On constricted positions (see this article) this weakness is fatal. The unity needed to hold constricted positions falls apart.
A leader can survive for a time in a barricaded positions (see this article), but weak organizations tend to degrade over time, especially within protective barricades. Their disorganization fails over time to earn rewards.
When organizations try to develop positions on a spread-out terrain, they are spread too thin. Their leaders cannot predict where to defend against competition. These armies must eventually retreat.
<Defeat> <’s> <philosophy> <also>
You must understand the philosophies that lead to defeat.
To defeat many types of opposing organizations in competition, all we must do it meet them and their leaders on the type of terrain when the ground itself will overcome them. The key part of the competitive comparison is their suitability for the ground. Not understanding position is always a mindset that leads to defeat.
<General> <’s> <arrive> <allow>
When a general arrives, you can know what he will do.
When we understand an opponent’s unsuitability for the ground, we only have to allow their leaders to try to develop a position upon it. That position will be self-defeating. We will not have to invest any resources in winning out over them in a comparison. The flaws in their leaders and the resulting weaknesses of their organizations will speak for themselves if we point them out.
<No> <can> <no> <examine> <also>
You must study each general carefully
Being outmaneuvered, lazy, falling down, falling apart, and/or retreating speaks for itself.
The positioning framwork here turns defeat into something predictable rather than unpredictable. Recognizing that entangling terrain punishes lack of discipline or that barricaded positions breed disorganization over time makes opponent weaknesses visible befor they even engage. I've seen startups collapse exactly this way where the terrain mismatch wasn't obvious until it was too late to adapt.