(This is Part 27 of a series. Go back to Part 26.)
The next to last principle to be considered in this series is the interesting military concept of economy of force.
Economy of force means that a commander uses the least force possible to achieve the result desired. Buy why? Why should he use the least force possible?
First of all, it's important to understand that the military concept of "economy of force" is very broad and refers to an economical use of all the resources available to a commander—that is, troops, money, supplies, energy, attention...everything.
The reason a commander wants to use the least resources possible to achieve any objective is because it allows him to concentrate strength against weakness when it matters —at the decisive point.
Resources must be used to secure bases, assure adequate supplies, fight minor skirmishes and many other things. If the commander wastes too many resources on these ancillary but essential matters he will not have enough resources left to be able to concentrate sufficient strength at the enemy's point of weakness, and thus risks losing a confrontation that he might have won.
There's another reason why a commander should always use the least resources possible to achieve an objective: Because he may need to confront other enemies or this one again in the future. If he squanders his resources he may not have enough left to meet the next challenge, whatever it might be.
An example from military history is the campaign fought by Saladin, a very adroit Islamic general, against the English king Richard-the-Lion-Heart during the Crusades.
Richard was there to win back back Jerusalem for Christianity. Saladin, whose Islamic religion held the city of Jerusalem equally precious, was there to stop him.
Saladin had a choice: As one option, he could have engaged Richard in battle. Given that he (Saladin) was a better general than Richard, he stood a good chance of winning the battle. Nevertheless, there was always the risk of losing.
And Saladin was very aware of the concept of economy of force. He didn't know what other challenges or threats he might have to face from the Christians or whomever. So he decided to use a logistic strategy against Richard, one that involved a much smaller expenditure of troops, treasure and other resources.
Saladin's logistic strategy was to cut off sources of food for the English, so that the English troops began to starve and Richard finally had to withdraw. Saladin achieved his objective as a general with great economy of force.
Another example from military history is Napoleon at the Battle of Marengo in 1800. The Austrian general Melas was waiting for him near the border with France.
But Napoleon very shrewdly crossed the "impassable" Alps in winter—like Hannibal 2000 years before—and suddenly arrived in Milan, cutting off Melas' lines of communications back to Austria. Thus Melas would either have to either retreat—towards France—or engage the French army. Napoleon had succeeded in bringing Melas to battle under favorable circumstances.
But in confronting Melas at the battle, Napoleon did not use enough economy of force. He sent relatively large army groups north and south of his position and left himself without a reserve. In other words, he did not have enough resources left to concentrate sufficiently at the enemy's point of weakness. Consequently, by mid-afternoon Napoleon had lost the battle.
Fortunately, one of his urgently recalled army groups—led by the very able general Desaix—just then arrived back at the scene. A very dispirited Napoleon, surveying the battle that was now almost hopeless, asked Desaix for his opinion. And I love what Desaix replied at that moment: "Well, this battle is lost," he said, and then looked at his watch. "But there is time to win another."
Napoleon and Desaix went on the win the Battle of Marengo, snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. But Napoleon had learned his lesson: In battle, he never again left himself without a reserve.
How can we use this principle in our daily lives?
In essence, economy of force means to choose your battles carefully. By "battles" of course is not meant "battle" per se, but rather, any desired goal or result that you would like to achieve.
We can spread ourselves too thin by trying to do too much. If we take on too many projects or activities—no matter how desirable each one may be—we can wind up without sufficient force to really do the job in the most important areas.
By choosing our "battles" carefully, that is, by choosing carefully which goals we're going to expend time, treasure, energy and attention on, we help to ensure that we'll have enough power to achieve those goals that matter the most.
We can't do everything. For instance, we can't nurture the world in all the places where it might make a difference. That is not in our power. We can't do all the things we'd like to do.
But we can do something. If we're aware of the principle of economy of force, we'll be more likely to be successful in those areas where we'd like to make a difference.
(This is the end of Part 27. Go to Part 28.)
—jim sloman, 10.11.03 for 2.21.05
|
