The noise before defeat

 

I know of a highly talented young musician who was also quite intelligent but would on occasion say something ridiculous, even bordering on moronic. He would realise his error almost immediately but in the rush to make amends would make it worse. The joke was that this young man was highly intelligent but would say something stupid and would say 35 more stupid things trying to cover up. That was of course an exaggeration, but there’s a lesson in this sequence.

How many times have we heard the disclaimer, ‘that’s being pragmatic’? Whenever something is said or done that goes against the grain of stated methodology, theory and even philosophy, and this is pointed out to the sayer or doer, ‘pragmatism’ is a convenient disclaimer.’ It’s a trap.

It’s a bit like the theory that the hardest thing is the first lie. Or the first theft or murder. There’s remorse, determination never to repeat and such, but the fact of deceit, theft or murder in the first instance makes repeat-offence less traumatic in this sense.

It is never easy to remain ‘pure’ in theory or practice. In politics or in other things. It is probably easier for an individual than for a collective. Sometimes quick decisions are called for and lack of time can trip. Sometimes the blows, metaphorically speaking, are unexpected. One can slip. One can miss one’s footing. A falling person can reach out and clutch something, anything, and that something held on to could mark the person or collective, if that be the case, for life.

There are two key elements in engagements that are collective in nature. There’s strategy. Tactics is the closer relative of pragmatism. Obviously these don’t find articulation separately. Ideally tactics are informed by strategy, and strategy as much by objective as by the ideological and philosophical preferences that preceded all these.

It doesn’t play out that way in real life. All the more reason for caution.

If caution is not exercised, that which was first seen, in all probability, as exception tends towards becoming the norm. Tactics become everything. The day-to-day of tactical consideration corrodes strategy. Ideological and philosophical foundations begin to sink and eventually the edifice collapses. And we wonder why!

It was all put in a nutshell by the Chinese military general widely recognized as an exceptional strategist who lived, commanded and wrote in the Eastern Zhou period 9771–256 BC) in ‘The Art of War.’ Among his reflections on strategy and tactics is this gem: ‘strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory; tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.’

Tactics are critical, obviously. Without tactics victory will take a long time to come. This is why all militaries, and of course political or even corporate projects, require tacticians. They need to be sobered, however, by strategists, people who never take their eyes off the proverbial larger picture. Where the strategist (or the philosopher, thinker or grandmaster of vision) is ignored, there can be oohs and aahs, chest-thumping and self-congratulations about perceived brilliance in battle, but, as Sun Tzu warns, all that could very well be precursors to defeat, either in terms of failing to achieve specific objectives or even the total collapse of the project.

This is why the word ‘noise’ is used by Sun Tzu. Cacophony of whatever kind is a distraction. It is a dense cloud that hides strategy and even the larger objective. We cannot see the bigger picture and even the smaller picture could elude.

So this gives the observer a rule of thumb to measure the worth of a particular course of action and obtain a sense of possible outcomes. Where tactics dominate, the noise is louder. Defeat is probable, rather than possible. In other words, when voices are raised, when chests are beaten, when umbrage of one kind or another feigned, it is probably the case that the particular protagonist is on shaky ground, that slippage is imminent and failure inevitable. Conversely, where course-correction following error is the norm and there’s less (strident) justification of word and deed by the pragmatism-argument, more territory, however you may want to define it, is likely to be secured for the particular project.

No one keeps count of slips. No one keeps count of the number of self-righteous explanations of contradictions that are dominated by references to pragmatism. No one is counting and categorizing tactics. However, when, like the musician who would cover himself with ignominy referred to above, the noise is likely to be heard. In fact the noise is often too loud not to be heard. It’s veritably deafening. Literally. People and organisations move from sober articulation of opinion to indignant objection to wild and vociferous rants to even the use of violence to obliterate all other voices, noisy or otherwise.

In the event of defeat, let’s remember, no one really cares about the noise, the grand or convoluted justifications of straying from wholesome pathways, the lame excuses of having no other options etc. Defeat makes all preceding noise irrelevant.

Tactics without strategy, let us re-quote Sun Tzu, is the noise before defeat. A truism to keep in mind.

[This article was published in the Daily News under the weekly column title 'The Recurrent Thursday']