21
Five Names, Five Respects
The first is Awesomely Strong, the second Loftily Arrogant, the third Firmly Unbending, the fourth Fearfully Suspicious, and the fifth Doubly Soft.
In the case of the Awesomely Strong army, be pliant and soft and await them.
In the case of the Loftily Arrogant army, be respectful and outlast them.
In the case of the Firmly Unbending army, entice and then seize them.
In the case of the Fearfully Suspicious army, press them to the fore; set up a clamor on the flanks; deepen your moats and increase the height of your fortifications; and cause difficulty for their supplies.
In the case of the Doubly Soft army, set up a clamor to terrorize them, shake and disrupt them. If they go forth then strike them. If they do not go forth, surround them.
Such are the five names.
Armies have five manifestations of “respect” and five of “brutality.”
What is meant by the five manifestations of respect?
When it crosses the enemy’s border and is respectful, the army loses its normality.
If it acts respectfully twice, the army will not have anywhere to forage.
If it acts respectfully three times, the army will lose its appropriate affairs.
If it acts respectfully four times, the army will not have any food.
If it acts respectfully five times, the army will not attain its objective. Such are the five respects.
When it crosses the border and acts brutally, the army is referred to as a guest.
If it acts brutally twice, it is termed glorious.
If it acts brutally three times, the host’s men are afraid.
If it acts brutally four times, the troops and officers have been deceived.
If it acts brutally five times, the soldiers invariably have been greatly wasted.
The five respects and five brutalities must be mutually implemented.
COMMENTARY
The early military writings occasionally appended succinct, poignant names to various types of armies, often coupled with suggested means for confronting and defeating them. This practice mirrored similar evaluations found in the painfully real world of statecraft and political diplomacy, for enemies of both types had to be first characterized and analyzed before tactics for manipulating them might be evolved.
Orthodox theory in both the early military classics and Confucian writers stressed that warfare was a righteous activity, not to be undertaken lightly, and then only when compelled by self-preservation or to extirpate the evil. Naturally, determining whether military action might be necessary was fundamentally affected by the analyst’s mindset and strategic interests. Consequently, just as in twentieth-century history, perceived threats were frequently cited to justify preemptive action. However, apart from those Legalists who viewed warfare as the necessary means for enlarging the state and augmenting its wealth and power, most thinkers interpreted military activities from within a reasonably benign framework. Sun-tzu himself was a strong proponent of avoiding frequent, prolonged military actions because they would debilitate the state, and Sun Pin’s era, although far more precarious, generally accorded nominal respect to proper motives. However, perhaps because he lived in an age of ever escalating warfare, Sun Pin’s tactics for defeating the five different armies are more engagement oriented than a more abstract, largely verbal set formulated by Wu Ch’i just at the start of the era.
The second part of the chapter, which may have originally been separate, characterizes an invading army’s behavior in terms of two fundamental modes of action: “respectful” (or constrained) versus cruel and “brutal.” Naturally the latter was normally associated with invading forces and was inescapably witnessed in the massively destructive Warring States period. However, the perspective prevailing in Sun Pin’s era (or somewhat thereafter when this book may have been compiled) still retained vestiges of earlier conceptualizations and values. To conquer, an invading army had to manifest a severe, fearful image and act decisively, with strength. The frequent warnings found in later Warring States works against rampaging, plundering, and wantonly destroying the countryside no doubt reflect reactions against excesses that, while effectively striking terror and possibly cowering foes into rapid submission, increased hatreds and hardened resistance. In contrast, Sun Pin’s analysis emphasizes that being “respectful” provokes disaster and thus marks a weak, incapable army, whereas brutality, if not carried to extremes, proves effective as well as expected.
Concretely, when the army crosses the border it must act strongly and is accordingly termed a “guest,” the normal designation. Manifesting brutal behavior a second time makes it “glorious.” A third time and everyone in the defender’s territory is terrified. However, exceeding three such expressions of violence creates difficulties. The soldiers, by then no doubt exhausted, feel deceived, perhaps having expected a much simpler mission. (This would be particularly true when, contrary to propaganda, the campaign meets with determined resistance from the populace rather than merely being directed against a corrupt, hated ruler as in the famous case of King Wu vanquishing the depraved Shang.) A fifth time and their strength is finished, their efforts wasted. Of course victory in battle and “brutality” are not necessarily synonymous, nor is the range of behavior encompassed by Sun Pin’s employment of the term otherwise indicated. However, the closing remark—which asserts that respect and brutality need to be balanced and implemented in tandem—is somewhat problematic because this chapter essentially condemns all the manifestations of respect, as well as too frequently repeated acts of brutality. Therefore the conclusion is suspect; perhaps the words “five” appear incorrectly.