dauer said:
..."19. When you besiege a city for many days to wage war against it to capture it, you shall not destroy its trees by wielding an ax against them, for you may eat from them, but you shall not cut them down. Is the tree of the field a man, to go into the siege before you?
20. However, a tree you know is not a food tree, you may destroy and cut down, and you shall build bulwarks against the city that makes war with you, until its submission."
Yes, the little dirty hippy in me picked this one.
From a military perspective (from which I am borne), this passage has an obvious lesson. However from a personal perspective the lesson here holds equally true.
1. In order to lay siege to a city, the army must sustain itself, while draining the resources of the enemy. This is the battle of attritian. Laying siege to the enemy's city is a better way to beat the enemy than pitting force against force. However in order to sustain one's own army requires a steady supply line, or a readily available source of supply at hand. The latter is preferred. To use resources available for the wrong reasons or wrong goals, is a waste and places the besieger in roughly the same predicament as the besieged. In otherwords, use the right tools for the right job. Trees that bear fruit will sustain the army indefinitely, while the enemy behind walls starves and weakens. Trees that do not bear fruit are the right material for constructing mechanisms of battle in order to easily overcome the weakened defenses of the enemy.
2. In everyday life, we find people, who are against us, but that we find by what ever circumstances, that we have them corralled. Now we have resources available to us that will allow us to be victorious over our opponent. But that victory depends on how wisely we use those resources. For example: People that are on our side, or sympathetic to us, are like trees that bear fruit. They back us, they agree with us, in short, they sustain us. But we would be most unwise to use them to go after the enemy. It would result in killing that sympathy or alliance, which in turn would weaken us, which levels the battle field, instead of allowing us to keep the advantage. Trees that do not bear fruit are neutral people, but usually in authority or in positions of power. (non-fruit bearing trees have the stronger wood). After sufficient time, and with the backing of the alliances we have (and after letting the our opponent weaken through a lack of resources), we then make use of those with authority or power to aid us in defeating our enemy.
Personal experience: While serving at a unit as a division head, a supervisor and I had among other things, a personality conflict. I recognized this and had the advantage of being at the unit much longer than the supervisor, and had established my work ethic and competence at my job. However the supervisor immediately began to complain of my incompetence (because I would not comply with the demands which were ludicrous and unreasonable, as well as needlessly dangerous in certain cases). I did have sympathetic and understanding personnel both above and below my rank, however I never brought them into the fray. As days, weeks and months went by, the sympathy grew to the point were I was asked point blank "when are you going to do something about this?" I replied, when evaluation time came, and the supervisor showed the cards in hand, is when I would act (when it was all on paper).
When that day came, the marks I recieved were not only substandard, they were so low that there was reason to have me forced from the service for gross incompetence. However, those in sympathy with me, quietly provided information on every job, every deed, every good thing I had done on and off duty. They provided information on things I'd never thought twice about (but they'd never forgot).
When I went before the commanding officer to contest my low marks, the supervisor was there with a 3x4 inch memo pad, with things I did wrong. I had three folders 4 inches thick, with everything that I had accomplished within the marking period. The commanding officer took one look at the supervisor's evidence, then at mine. He asked me to leave, and the supervisor...he ordered to stay...
An hour later a new evaluation sheet was presented to me (by the commanding officer). Out of 22 areas for marking, 20 were raised to the top. The commanding officer asked if I would accept this. I agreed. He apologized, and the supervisor was replaced by another one by the end of the day.
That is why this passage Dauer, hit so close to home. Though I knew this passage, I never really thought about it, but subconsciously I must have taken its lesson to heart.
Sorry for the long windedness.
v/r
Q
