I once read a terrific column where the writer suggested that the differences between Western and Asian military strategy could be attributed to the different kind of strategic games that are popular in each region. Westerners play chess, he said, while Asians play Go.
Chess is direct. Attack the king, and kill him. To win, control the center of the board.
Go is a more indirect game. Surround your enemy, and immobilize him. To win, control the board’s periphery.
Accordingly, the gradual squeezing off of your opponent’s strategic options, anaconda-like, is emphasized to a greater degree in Asian military planning. In addition, tactical surprise and misdirection are highly favored as well. How then, does all of this relate to China’s thinking versus Taiwan?
If the writer is correct, then the Chinese should prefer a blockade of Taiwan to a straight invasion, for the simple reason that blockades are more indirect. Theory seems to match reality here, as most observers of Chinese military assets predict that a blockade is more likely. But it is upon these two options – military options – that the chess-playing Westerner tends to limit his thinking to. Meanwhile, his Go-playing counterpart is busy contemplating other moves, moves which are on the edges of the board…
The thing that writer is missing is that in China, 象棋 (xiangxi) is far more popular than 圍棋 (weiqi). Japanese people play far more 将棋 (shogi) than 囲碁 (igo).
I think that applying stereotypes of what kind of games Asians supposedly like to play to military strategy makes as much sense as saying that as chopstick users, Asians like to “trap their prey”, whereas fork using westerners would prefer “skewering methods”.
Check out the notes at the bottom of the following post:
http://foreignerinformosa.typepad.com/the_foreigner_in_formosa/2005/11/the_edges_of_th.html
I think that it covers the “stereotype” charge. Perhaps it’s my fault for not explicitly explaining that the statement, “Westerners play chess, Asians play Go” was a METAPHOR. The whole point of the fable was to tell the reader that Asians place greater EMPHASIS upon indirect attacks, so Westerners should pay more attention to the non-military attacks that are currently being leveled against Taiwan.
(BTW, I am genuinely puzzled by the chopsticks analogy. Am I actually to believe that strategy games have absolutely NO influence upon…strategy?)