Apologies for War

Apologies for War

--------------------------

Accustomed as we are to think of China as the greatest

peace-loving nation on earth, we are in some danger of forgetting

that her experience of war in all its phases has also been such

as no modern State can parallel. Her long military annals

stretch back to a point at which they are lost in the mists of

time. She had built the Great Wall and was maintaining a huge

standing army along her frontier centuries before the first Roman

legionary was seen on the Danube. What with the perpetual

collisions of the ancient feudal States, the grim conflicts with

Huns, Turks and other invaders after the centralization of

government, the terrific upheavals which accompanied the

overthrow of so many dynasties, besides the countless rebellions

and minor disturbances that have flamed up and flickered out

again one by one, it is hardly too much to say that the clash of

arms has never ceased to resound in one portion or another of the

Empire.

No less remarkable is the succession of illustrious captains

to whom China can point with pride. As in all countries, the

greatest are fond of emerging at the most fateful crises of her

history. Thus, Po Ch`i stands out conspicuous in the period when

Ch`in was entering upon her final struggle with the remaining

independent states. The stormy years which followed the break-up

of the Ch`in dynasty are illuminated by the transcendent genius

of Han Hsin. When the House of Han in turn is tottering to its

fall, the great and baleful figure of Ts`ao Ts`ao dominates the

scene. And in the establishment of the T`ang dynasty,one of the

mightiest tasks achieved by man, the superhuman energy of Li

Shih-min (afterwards the Emperor T`ai Tsung) was seconded by the

brilliant strategy of Li Ching. None of these generals need fear

comparison with the greatest names in the military history of

Europe.

In spite of all this, the great body of Chinese sentiment,

from Lao Tzu downwards, and especially as reflected in the

standard literature of Confucianism, has been consistently

pacific and intensely opposed to militarism in any form. It is

such an uncommon thing to find any of the literati defending

warfare on principle, that I have thought it worth while to

collect and translate a few passages in which the unorthodox view

is upheld. The following, by Ssu-ma Ch`ien, shows that for all

his ardent admiration of Confucius, he was yet no advocate of

peace at any price: --

Military weapons are the means used by the Sage to

punish violence and cruelty, to give peace to troublous

times, to remove difficulties and dangers, and to succor

those who are in peril. Every animal with blood in its veins

and horns on its head will fight when it is attacked. How

much more so will man, who carries in his breast the

faculties of love and hatred, joy and anger! When he is

pleased, a feeling of affection springs up within him; when

angry, his poisoned sting is brought into play. That is the

natural law which governs his being.... What then shall be

said of those scholars of our time, blind to all great

issues, and without any appreciation of relative values, who

can only bark out their stale formulas about "virtue" and

"civilization," condemning the use of military weapons? They

will surely bring our country to impotence and dishonor and

the loss of her rightful heritage; or, at the very least,

they will bring about invasion and rebellion, sacrifice of

territory and general enfeeblement. Yet they obstinately

refuse to modify the position they have taken up. The truth

is that, just as in the family the teacher must not spare the

rod, and punishments cannot be dispensed with in the State,

so military chastisement can never be allowed to fall into

abeyance in the Empire. All one can say is that this power

will be exercised wisely by some, foolishly by others, and

that among those who bear arms some will be loyal and others

rebellious. [58]

The next piece is taken from Tu Mu's preface to his

commentary on Sun Tzu: --

War may be defined as punishment, which is one of the

functions of government. It was the profession of Chung Yu

and Jan Ch`iu, both disciples of Confucius. Nowadays, the

holding of trials and hearing of litigation, the imprisonment

of offenders and their execution by flogging in the market-

place, are all done by officials. But the wielding of huge

armies, the throwing down of fortified cities, the hauling of

women and children into captivity, and the beheading of

traitors -- this is also work which is done by officials.

The objects of the rack and of military weapons are

essentially the same. There is no intrinsic difference

between the punishment of flogging and cutting off heads in

war. For the lesser infractions of law, which are easily

dealt with, only a small amount of force need be employed:

hence the use of military weapons and wholesale decapitation.

In both cases, however, the end in view is to get rid of

wicked people, and to give comfort and relief to the good....

Chi-sun asked Jan Yu, saying: "Have you, Sir, acquired

your military aptitude by study, or is it innate?" Jan Yu

replied: "It has been acquired by study." [59] "How can

that be so," said Chi-sun, "seeing that you are a disciple of

Confucius?" "It is a fact," replied Jan Yu; "I was taught by

Confucius. It is fitting that the great Sage should exercise

both civil and military functions, though to be sure my

instruction in the art of fighting has not yet gone very

far."

Now, who the author was of this rigid distinction

between the "civil" and the "military," and the limitation of

each to a separate sphere of action, or in what year of which

dynasty it was first introduced, is more than I can say.

But, at any rate, it has come about that the members of the

governing class are quite afraid of enlarging on military

topics, or do so only in a shamefaced manner. If any are

bold enough to discuss the subject, they are at once set down

as eccentric individuals of coarse and brutal propensities.

This is an extraordinary instance in which, through sheer

lack of reasoning, men unhappily lose sight of fundamental

principles.

When the Duke of Chou was minister under Ch`eng Wang, he

regulated ceremonies and made music, and venerated the arts

of scholarship and learning; yet when the barbarians of the

River Huai revolted, [60] he sallied forth and chastised

them. When Confucius held office under the Duke of Lu, and a

meeting was convened at Chia-ku, [61] he said: "If pacific

negotiations are in progress, warlike preparations should

have been made beforehand." He rebuked and shamed the

Marquis of Ch`i, who cowered under him and dared not proceed

to violence. How can it be said that these two great Sages

had no knowledge of military matters?

We have seen that the great Chu Hsi held Sun Tzu in high

esteem. He also appeals to the authority of the Classics: --

Our Master Confucius, answering Duke Ling of Wei, said:

"I have never studied matters connected with armies and

battalions." [62] Replying to K`ung Wen-tzu, he said: I

have not been instructed about buff-coats and weapons." But

if we turn to the meeting at Chia-ku, we find that he used

armed force against the men of Lai, so that the marquis of

Ch`i was overawed. Again, when the inhabitants of Pi

revolted, the ordered his officers to attack them, whereupon

they were defeated and fled in confusion. He once uttered

the words: "If I fight, I conquer." [63] And Jan Yu also

said: "The Sage exercises both civil and military

functions." [64] Can it be a fact that Confucius never

studied or received instruction in the art of war? We can

only say that he did not specially choose matters connected

with armies and fighting to be the subject of his teaching.

Sun Hsing-yen, the editor of Sun Tzu, writes in similar

strain: --

Confucius said: "I am unversed in military matters."

[65] He also said: "If I fight, I conquer." Confucius

ordered ceremonies and regulated music. Now war constitutes

one of the five classes of State ceremonial, [66] and must

not be treated as an independent branch of study. Hence, the

words "I am unversed in" must be taken to mean that there are

things which even an inspired Teacher does not know. Those

who have to lead an army and devise stratagems, must learn

the art of war. But if one can command the services of a

good general like Sun Tzu, who was employed by Wu Tzu-hsu,

there is no need to learn it oneself. Hence the remark added

by Confucius: "If I fight, I conquer."

The men of the present day, however, willfully interpret

these words of Confucius in their narrowest sense, as though

he meant that books on the art of war were not worth reading.

With blind persistency, they adduce the example of Chao Kua,

who pored over his father's books to no purpose, [67] as a

proof that all military theory is useless. Again, seeing

that books on war have to do with such things as opportunism

in designing plans, and the conversion of spies, they hold

that the art is immoral and unworthy of a sage. These people

ignore the fact that the studies of our scholars and the

civil administration of our officials also require steady

application and practice before efficiency is reached. The

ancients were particularly chary of allowing mere novices to

botch their work. [68] Weapons are baneful [69] and fighting

perilous; and useless unless a general is in constant

practice, he ought not to hazard other men's lives in battle.

[70] Hence it is essential that Sun Tzu's 13 chapters should

be studied.

Hsiang Liang used to instruct his nephew Chi [71] in the

art of war. Chi got a rough idea of the art in its general

bearings, but would not pursue his studies to their proper

outcome, the consequence being that he was finally defeated

and overthrown. He did not realize that the tricks and

artifices of war are beyond verbal computation. Duke Hsiang

of Sung and King Yen of Hsu were brought to destruction by

their misplaced humanity. The treacherous and underhand

nature of war necessitates the use of guile and stratagem

suited to the occasion. There is a case on record of

Confucius himself having violated an extorted oath, [72] and

also of his having left the Sung State in disguise. [73] Can

we then recklessly arraign Sun Tzu for disregarding truth and

honesty?