Who won the war ; the military leadership or the political leadership?
By Chakravarthy
I need not tell the readers that this debatable question that was born after 19th May 2009 has been the centre point of the present presidential election in Sri Lanka.
The president who turns each and every event to his political advantage - even if a child cries or laughs, in other words, politicize, was the chief claimant of war victory while the military commander who physically conducted the war is his challenger or competitor.
This is really another subject of whether the chicken came first or the egg came first.
The innocent public is confused and neither understands nor redeemed from the dilemma by either party. But the time has come for them to decide on the 26th.
Let us see what Sun Tzu tells about the ruler and the general in his book “The Art of War”. Who is Sun Tzu and what is Art of War?
Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general during the Spring and Autumn period (722-481 BC). Most scholars surmise he lived from 544 BC to 496 BC
Around 2,000 years ago, China was in turmoil. A series of wars left a third of the population dead and the leaders were in search of a new way of governing.
Confucius and Lao Tzu had developed their solutions but Sun Tzu's philosophy, born of his direct experience of war also gained a popular following amongst the ruling class.
In the Art of War, Sun Tzu recommended a rarely required strategic method to win war.
He said “In war, the general receives his commands from the sovereign, [means state or ruler] collects his army and concentrates his forces. Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline. This is a certain road to victory“.
When he talks about the ruler, he does not praise the ruler in any chapter, instead says that it is the duty of the ruler to provide food and armaments to his forces. ‘Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished‘.
Further he says there are three ways in which a ruler can bring misfortune upon his army;
1.By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey. This is called hobbling the army.
2.By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army. This causes restlessness in the soldier's minds.
3.By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances. This shakes the confidence of the soldiers. No ruler should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no general should fight a battle simply out of pique.
Since it was the Chinese rulers who wanted a strategy from him to win war and govern the country, Sun Tzu mentions little about rulers but rests the entire responsibility of winning a war on the general who commands the battle. The ruler is to provide the army with food and weapon.
When talking about general he says ; the general is the bulwark of the State; if the bulwark is complete at all points; the State will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the State will be weak.
The general who advances without coveting fame and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only thought is to protect his country and do good service for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.
That may be the reason in the history, there is no arm chair politician - a prime minister or a president ever claimed responsibility for the war victory like Sri Lanka‘s president claims. Instead they honored their the generals who were in the battle field and were proud of their achievement.
In history we learn that at Waterloo in Belgium, Napoleon Bonaparte suffered defeat at the hands of the Duke of Wellington. At that time George III (George William Frederick), 4 June 1738 – 29 January 1820, was the King of Great Britain and King of Ireland. He never claimed any war glory.
Indira Gandhi, who was determined like a goddess to win Indo-Pakistan war of 1971, that created Bangladesh, never sought credit for herself, but honored Sam Manekshaw, by promoting him as a Field Marshal for he showed uncommon ability to motivate the forces, coupling it with a mature war strategy. The emergency Indira introduced in 1975 with authoritarian excesses, similar to that of in SL today, brought her down fall in 1977 election.
Sri Lanka’s president’s war claim and assertion that it was his political leadership gave the victory is unacceptable and laughable. Government media and few others shower him with endless appreciations but the reason is well known. No doubt he is the owner of the armed forces and he could be proud of the achievement of his forces. He could have provided all the assistance sought to fight, but it was not he who fought.
Has he, a 40 year experienced politician, ever handled a gun? I mean not to kill any. Has he ever seen the fire ball coming out of cannons? Has he ever fired a rocket? Has he ever touched a grenade by hand? Has he ever heard the thunderous sound of bombs? Has he ever carried a bleeding dead soldier's body?
If you say no to all these, I wonder how he can qualify to claim war credit? Can you say that it was the minister of sports who was responsible for the Sri Lankan cricketers to win the World Cup in 1996?
Further a war glory is not bound to give long lasting political dividends. Look at Winston Churchill, it was said, “Between 1940 and 1945 Winston Churchill was probably the most popular British prime minister of all time. In May 1945 his approval rating in the opinion polls, which had never fallen below 78 per cent, stood at 83 per cent.
With few exceptions, politicians and commentators confidently predicted that he would lead the Conservatives to victory at the forthcoming general election.
In the event, he led them to one of their greatest ever defeats. It was also one for which he was partly responsible, because the very qualities that had made him a great leader in war were ill-suited to domestic politics in peacetime.
Politicians are often rejected by voters because they have failed in office. But one of the reasons why Churchill lost the general election in 1945 was because he had succeeded in completing the almost superhuman task he had taken on in 1940, and in a way this made him redundant.
The conduct of the war, however, was his overriding passion, and military victory was by far the most important of his goals - thus everything else, including party politics, was secondary. As a result, when the war came to an end and party politics resumed, Churchill suddenly found himself without a clear sense of purpose or direction.
Well, in SL also the conduct of the war, however, was the overriding passion, and military victory was by far the most important of goals - thus everything else, including cost of living was secondary. That way people have their right to support a leader issue by issue.
Besides there is no guarantee that a war victory would give a bumper political harvest. It might disappoint too. Let us count time to see the people’s verdict for ; Who won the war ; the military leadership or the political leadership?
19 Comments
Shameless arguments......
It does not matter who really won the battle (if not the war), the claims and counter-claims expose the nudity of the head of the state.
This is not a matter of deciding the weight behind the victory but deciding the forces / people to retain the victory of the nation. All those ‘Chakravarthies’ who experienced political bankruptcy and bewildered the nation and country in past, were driven by jealousy and hatred to ruin the successful successor.
You have intentionaly forgotten one factor which was crucial for the war. That is internationl presssure. This war was faught in 21 centuray and not in 500BC where the international pressure was not at least in the vocabulary. It was Mahinda who faced the international pressure with a back bone. Without his bold decisions war could have not been won. This war could have been finished long before if we had a leader with determination to end the war and face the international pressure with a back bone. For example beloved denzil Kobbekaduwa could have finished the war if JR had a back bone to face the Indian pressure. JR made India his enemy right from the begining. Mahinda is a man who learn from his predecessors faults. He made sure he would not do the same mistakes. It says wise people learn from others mistakes. Mahinda is such a person. He had only one enemy; LTTE. He did his best making everybody else is his friend. He devlopped a good relationship with India and convinced India that he fought their war. SF would have been just another retired army personnel without Mahinda. Very simple question. Who get the blame if the war was not won? Mahinda for sure. So how come he can not claim the credit for the wor won then. Without any doubt I can say Mahinda is the real force behind the war.
Who launched the war, the military leadership or the political leadership, any child would provide the answer. The Military leadership is only executed the decision was made by the Political Leadership. Therefore Mr. Rajapakshe deserves all glory first.
when playing cricket, if team is won, the credit is gone to the capatain not to the sportsminister. In this case, war is won and Ltters are defeated. Who fought the war was the army soldiers and other defence elements. Who gave the commands and fielding work a lead properly, should be army commmander. So anyone, those who resound about the international pressure on the country´s leader may have forgotten this, they would talk about the political leadership- in this case, it is to MR. So one good question that I cant find answers is the same fraction of people say that we had only abused regimes from that day on, but if this partiuclar leader with 40yrs of political experiene has been a solid personality without corupted mindedness, why is that today everyone is discussing about corruption charges of MR administration to a level that no other regime never had. And even internationl bodies and transparency international accused MR administration of hahving abused collosal amounts of funds that were donated to Tsunami victims.
Back in 1987, General Kobekaduwa is believed to be a man who can defeat the ltte. He was well respected in the army as well as the general public. But, did he manged to lead the military towards the victory under the political regime of that time? JRJ succumbed to the indian pressure and called the army back leading utter dissapointment to the army and the General. Later he was killed by a land-mine in Jaffna, which was greatly believed to be an inside-job directed by then president RP.
After his election in 2005, SF was appointed as the army commander by the present president Mahinda Rajapakse on the recommendation of his brother Gotabhaya, who fought with SF in many battels against the ltte. This appointment was made just few weeks before SF to be retired according to the SL army regulations, which came with 4 year extension. SF being an ultra-egoistic person was publicly showing his disrespect towards the Defense-Secretory GR claiming that he had to call GR "sir" even though GR was a junior officer in the army before he retired. GR was aware of this unprofessional conduct of SF, but not bothered because he was convinced of the ruthless effectiveness of SF in the fight against ltte, the most ruthless terrorist organization according to FBI (USA).
So it is the political leadership that should be credited for the victory against the terrorism. The reasons are,
(1) Did Not succumb to the international pressure to halt military operations.
(2) Delivered the necessary hardware and man-power to the military (Army, Navy, Air-Force and police) for the operations
(3) Maintained the normal activities in the country to a certain extent under heavy economic pressure
(4) Gained and maintained support of the majority for the operations.
Who won the war ; the military leadership or the political leadership?
What do you want us to say. You want to create a agony in people's mind. Some body work for some body and destroyed our peace. We do not want your dirty trick. Write some thing worth for the society and for the children education (ex. literature)
See Sarath Fonseka talk and you guys right without checking the truth.
Thank you.
I just cannot believe there are people in SL who are actually motivated to write such rubbish when they have been freed from 30 years of war. You Mr Chakravarthy do not deserve a country. I do believe in free speech however I am shamed of your lack of gratitude.
"if the answer is no to all these questions you can't claim war credit.This is stupid. Only soldiers in the battle field. Neither military or political leadersip. At least write on your own name.
Winston Churchill oversaw the dethroning of the British Empire and also oversaw the emergence of the Super Power USA. His dogmatic desire to punish Germans to the end depleted the British Empire. Britain is now far behind USA, Japan, German and China in GDP which is the direct result of taking the war to the end. He also helped USA during the very tough economic time by creating employment in the States by purchasing arms and ammunition on lend lease aggreement. It was an opportunity for USA to rise from the darkness of the famous depression.
About Indira Ghandhi, Indira Ghandhi was jealous of Sam Manekshaw and directly asked Sam Manekshaw whether he intended to take over the power. Sam replied that both of us have long nosees but I do not meddle in politics or something similar. Also for Winston Churchill, When Allied forces were loosing from all the fronts, General Wavel scored the first victory against the Germans. Everyone was chanting Wavel, Wavel and Winston Churchill could not stomach it. He transfered General Wavel to another front and then to India as Viceroy.
Finally to your question who won the war, It was neither MR nor SF. The puppet masters are behind the scene, from far and wide and North.
Easwaran
Who won the war?
Political leadrship 50%
All armed forces + Police 50%
Army can't take the full credit. If not for Air Force bombing Army couldn't have advanced an inch to strong LTTE territory. Remember what happened when Army tried to advanced Muhamalli twice with our Air Force assistance on SF direction. Our soldiers were butchered. Navy too should get the credit for destroying LTTE ships. Air Force & Navy commanders didn't try to get the full credit so why can't SF say we did it rather than I did it.
Out of Armed Forces the % should be as follows.
Army 50%
Air Force 20%
Navy 20%
Police 10%
Its the post 9/11 world. Nothing else.
That and that only helped Sri lanka and the repeated state pogroms in a different magnitude provided the result the chauvinists wanted.
Sinhala leadership and the Sangha a capable of anything else? Next couple of days will tell.
the war is over jast half. after 27th when mahinda brothers go home or prison than the war is over.
Whoever takes credit for winning the 'war' against the LTTE should also be held responsible by the IC for killing thousands of innocent Tamil civillians, war crimes that could have been avoided.
SF has been service in the Military for 40 years and commander for at least 4 years before Mahinda take over the government of SL.
How come he could not finish LTTE during his 40 years? Mahinda extended his term another 4 years then he was able to win with the GR and other logistic help from India whom Mahinda made friendship with. Without Mahinda there is no way SF would have won the war.
MR Chakravarthy you know the world history but not know mush of Sri-Lankan. Mahinda will win this election and will be Prime Minister after he completed his Term as President for another 8 years.
Winning a war was a collective task comprised of two sides.
A) Defence elements: Army, Navy, Airforce (but here the work done by Army men should be the major part of fighting against)
B) Political leadership (not only the govt currently in power of previous ones as well, since this war was not restricted to 4 years but for three more decades )
It is the typical nature of lankens that they repeat of the great work delivered by past leaders whatever the field they engaged with. This has been the culture of srilanka. But in a counntry there can be similar personalities time to time. That is common to every population. When living in West for such a longtime, what I feel following lanken articles today is that our people should finally understand if people overvalued then Kobbakaduwa, today´s SF should be given multiple times of credit for his sacrifices and achievements. Once he was for them the most powerful army commander in the world. today, just because he intended to go against country´s prevailiing abuses, he has become lower to a bad soldier or for some even a traitor. This is the style of srilankens those who keep going on with mud slinging campaigns against anyone.
I do believe that our people forget things easily than any others when balancing good and bad service of any personality. This had been the case with previous leaders too. Iwould never say that MR´s leadership did not cause to win the war. But it was just a part of the collective process. Those who argue political leadership was a must to achieve all these, can also ask themselves why the theory can not be applied when eleminating abuses or lawlessness events in thecountry eventhough political leadership is behind them too. Why are the numbers of abductions or criminal rates in the country today are at alarming levels. Why do journalists bring more articles that there are not press freedom in sl today ? Winning a war was a part of the work of the govt. And people have also forgotten the role of previous regime in terms of getting the LTTE banned on Europe, Canada, India and several other countries with the great work done by late hon. minister Kadirgarmar. If he could not have done that, the winning could have been unthinkable. While seeing the activities of tamil diaspora since then, how far they have organised to provide with the assistance while previleging the state fonds supplied to them from the west - are known to us better than to ones living in SL.
Winning a war was a collective task comprised of two sides.
A) Defence elements: Army, Navy, Airforce (but here the work done by Army men should be the major part of fighting against)
B) Political leadership (not only the govt currently in power of previous ones as well, since this war was not restricted to 4 years but for three more decades )
It is the typical nature of lankens that they repeat of the great work delivered by past leaders whatever the field they engaged with. This has been the culture of srilanka. But in a counntry there can be similar personalities time to time. That is common to every population. When living in West for such a longtime, what I feel following lanken articles today is that our people should finally understand if people overvalued then Kobbakaduwa, today´s SF should be given multiple times of credit for his sacrifices and achievements. Once he was for them the most powerful army commander in the world. today, just because he intended to go against country´s prevailiing abuses, he has become lower to a bad soldier or for some even a traitor. This is the style of srilankens those who keep going on with mud slinging campaigns against anyone.
I do believe that our people forget things easily than any others when balancing good and bad service of any personality. This had been the case with previous leaders too. Iwould never say that MR´s leadership did not cause to win the war. But it was just a part of the collective process. Those who argue political leadership was a must to achieve all these, can also ask themselves why the theory can not be applied when eleminating abuses or lawlessness events in thecountry eventhough political leadership is behind them too. Why are the numbers of abductions or criminal rates in the country today are at alarming levels. Why do journalists bring more articles that there are not press freedom in sl today ? Winning a war was a part of the work of the govt. And people have also forgotten the role of previous regime in terms of getting the LTTE banned on Europe, Canada, India and several other countries with the great work done by late hon. minister Kadirgarmar. If he could not have done that, the winning could have been unthinkable. While seeing the activities of tamil diaspora since then, how far they have organised to provide with the assistance while previleging the state fonds supplied to them from the west - are known to us better than to ones living in SL.
Who won the war.
India won the war; China won the war: America won the war. international community won the war. Pakistan won the war. Russia won the war. Iran won the war.
If they did not give the material support. break down LTTE network. You guys would not have been able to touch LTTE.