I have learned that both of these maxims have been employed over the years:
- The best defense is a solid offense.
- The best offense is a strong defense.
Which do you think is true or stronger, if both are true? I usually think of this the first way and in terms of a chess game. Your object in chess and any competitive game is to win, not to avoid losing too badly. I suppose in other conflicts you must be careful to avoid taking too much damage so that any victory would be hollow and sorely won, but even then defeating the opponent quickly will keep him from hurting you.
The page I link to above has a quote from George Washington which I looked up for a bit of context. The first American president and great American general said:
It is unfortunate when men cannot or will not see danger at a distance; or, seeing it, are undetermined as to the means, which are necessary to avert or keep it afar off. I question whether the evil arising from the French getting possession of Louisiana and the Floridas would be generally seen, until felt; and yet no problem in Euclid is more evident, or susceptible of clearer demonstration. Not less difficult is it to make them believe, that offensive operations oftentimes are the surest, if not in some cases the only means of defence.
That’s generally the way I see it. What do you think?
Reminds me of Proverbs 26:4-5
Answer not a fool according to his folly,
lest you be like him yourself.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own eyes. (ESV)
As for whether offense or defense is better, my mother often gave me good advice during my moments of indecision. She’d invariably say, “Do something, even if it’s wrong.”
Which principle is more important depends on what you are doing. The key factor is the cost of offense relative to defense. Rope-a-dope is appropriate when offense is costly and your oppenent can be incited into spending rashly on it. If offense is less costly, it often allows you to control the initiative of a situation.
It’s really about your enemy’s mind, not your own.
If your enemy is trying to hit you, it is tempting to concentrate on defending yourself — but then you are playing his game, the game he came prepared to play. If you concentrate on hitting him instead, he will be thrown back mentally as well as physically, and have to reconsider his plan. This lets you get inside his OODA loop. (This is why American forces are always trained to attack into an ambush.)
The opposite is true if your enemy is trying to defend. He is expecting you to attack. Because he is focused on that, he is off balance for a defensive approach. You can probably get most of what you want by letting him have his space, and doing what you wanted around him. There will come a time when he must come out, or collapse from exhaustion. This is the principle of siege warfare: the stores, both physical and mental, necessary to maintaining yourself against a siege do not last forever. (However, see also chevauchee, the method of offense against targets that are not being defended, designed to force a defender to abandon his defenses and come to battle.)
Very good points. Thank you.