un Tzu even places disruption of enemy alliances before the defeat of the enemys army. He states that, Next best is to disrupt his alliances...Look into the matter of his alliances and cause them to be severed and dissolved. (Sun Tzu, p. 78) This is in stark contrast to Clausewitz who ranks this as a tertiary concern.If these first two objectives are impossible to achieve then and only then does Sun Tzu advocate attacking the enemys army. Here instead of using Clausewitzs concentration and speed to win a military victory, Sun Tzu advocates deception and surprise When ten to the enemys one, surround him (Sun Tzu, p. 79), therefore again minimizing the use of force. He proclaims, those skilled in war subdue the enemys army without battle. They capture his cities without assaulting them and overthrow his state without protracted operations. (Sun Tzu, p. 79)Where Clausewitz views the taking of the enemys capital as the secondary goal to the defeat of the enemys army, Sun Tzu places this goal last in order of priority. He considers any attack on a city as The worst policy (Sun Tzu, p. 78) and must be carried out only as a last resort. He realizes that any attack on a city would result in enormous casualties and therefore must be avoided.Similarities Though Clausewitz and Sun Tzu provide seemingly contrasting approaches to the development of effective strategy, there are parallels that can be drawn from their concepts. Both discuss the disruption of alliances and the defeat of the enemys army. Both discuss attacking the enemys cities or capital. Both are concerned with achieving victory at lower costs. (Handel, p.48) These concepts eventually lead to a focus of effort on which leaders can build their strategies. Thus, if one views their approaches as an attempt to identify and overcome an enemys critical point in order to achieve victory, this similar thought transcends their differences in priorities and means.ConclusionBoth Sun Tz...
