Strategy Central
By and For Practitioners
By Monte Erfourth, October 27, 2024
Introduction
Sitting Bull, the great Hunkpapa Lakota leader, is remembered for his resilience, spiritual leadership, and unrelenting commitment to preserving his people’s way of life amid overwhelming adversity. His approach to resisting U.S. expansion during the late 19th century stands as a compelling historical lesson in asymmetric resistance against a technologically advanced adversary. Sitting Bull’s strategy shares elements with modern resistance movements, yet it notably diverges in its grounding in a defensive, culturally protective philosophy, rather than an ideologically offensive or destructive one. By analyzing Sitting Bull’s resistance through the lens of Sun Tzu’s teachings and contrasting it with contemporary instances of asymmetrical resistance, such as Hamas in Gaza, we gain insights into the complexities of opposition strategies in situations of deep power imbalances.
Preservation Over Conquest
Sitting Bull’s primary objective was not conquest but preservation. His strategy was centered around the goal of securing the Lakota people’s autonomy and safeguarding their culture, land, and way of life. Unlike modern insurgencies, where ideological conquest can sometimes fuel conflict, Sitting Bull’s motivations were rooted in cultural and existential imperatives. His methods were patient, reflective, and primarily defensive, embracing Sun Tzu’s philosophy that “to fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.” When Sitting Bull recognized that armed conflict was unavoidable, he refrained from seeking direct confrontation with U.S. forces until he deemed his people ready.
Alliance Building for Strength in Unity
In the years leading up to the Battle of the Little Bighorn, Sitting Bull focused on consolidating tribal unity. U.S. expansionism and the discovery of gold in the Black Hills had made the Sioux homeland a target, leading to increased incursions by the U.S. military. Rather than directly engaging with these forces, Sitting Bull pursued alliances with other Plains tribes, notably the Cheyenne and Arapaho, realizing that unity among Indigenous tribes was crucial to counterbalance U.S. numerical and technological advantages. In Sun Tzu’s view, creating alliances is a fundamental aspect of strategic planning, as he emphasizes the importance of exploiting the “balance of power.” Sitting Bull’s coalition reflected this understanding, and the alliance-building enabled him to command a larger, more versatile fighting force when necessary.
Spiritual Resilience as Psychological Warfare
Sitting Bull’s resistance also integrated spiritual leadership, which played a dual role in both rallying his people and intimidating adversaries. He conducted traditional rituals and ceremonies, such as the Sun Dance, to invoke spiritual resilience and envision outcomes of battles. Before Little Bighorn, he reportedly had a vision of U.S. soldiers “falling like grasshoppers,” which bolstered the resolve of his warriors. This commitment to spiritual resilience aligns with Sun Tzu’s principle of “mystifying the enemy,” wherein he advises that appearing invulnerable can diminish the enemy’s morale and prevent open confrontation. Sitting Bull’s visions and prophecies were powerful tools for psychological warfare, providing his warriors with a sense of destiny while instilling hesitation in their enemies.
Calculated Conflict and Strategic Retreat
At the same time, Sitting Bull was pragmatic. His strategy avoided high-casualty confrontations that would threaten the tribe’s survival. He recognized that prolonged and costly engagement with a technologically superior opponent would ultimately weaken his people. After the victory at Little Bighorn, where Lakota and Cheyenne forces decimated Lieutenant Colonel George Custer’s Seventh Cavalry, Sitting Bull refrained from continued battles and instead sought refuge in Canada. His retreat demonstrated his commitment to survival over pyrrhic victory, illustrating a calculated approach to minimizing unnecessary loss. Sun Tzu’s advice that “he who knows when he can fight and when he cannot, will be victorious” resonates with this move, as Sitting Bull understood the importance of choosing battles that aligned with his broader objectives of preservation and protection.
Comparing with Modern Resistance: Hamas and the Gaza Conflict
Sitting Bull’s resistance contrasts sharply with that of Hamas, whose methods have included attacks on civilian targets as part of a strategy to challenge Israel’s military dominance. Hamas’s tactics, which blend armed conflict with psychological operations aimed at Israel’s civilian population, often provoke widespread violence and severe retaliation, resulting in significant harm to Gaza’s residents and infrastructure. While Hamas’s resistance might share the Lakota’s imbalance of power against a superior military force, its strategy diverges fundamentally from Sitting Bull’s philosophy of protection and cultural resilience. Hamas’s methods demonstrate a more aggressive and often indiscriminate approach, illustrating Sun Tzu’s caution against strategies that might “provoke enemies by vexing them” when lacking the strength for sustained confrontation.
In addition, Sitting Bull’s methods are an example of resistance through endurance rather than attrition. His refusal to engage in continuous, high-cost warfare highlights a model of resistance that balances survival with dignity, allowing his people to regroup and adapt rather than succumb to total destruction. This aligns with Sun Tzu’s principle of “conserving strength and resources” for the opportune moment, enabling Sitting Bull’s people to survive as a cultural entity despite U.S. military superiority. In contrast, modern resistance movements like Hamas, facing similarly superior forces, often exhaust themselves in resource-draining confrontations, with heavy humanitarian costs. This approach reveals the dangers of engaging in asymmetrical warfare that lacks viable end goals or durable alliances, ultimately risking both military defeat and societal breakdown.
Strategic Patience and Lessons for Modern Resistance
The Lakota strategy of strategic retreat, embodied by Sitting Bull’s flight to Canada following Little Bighorn, offers another lesson in enduring asymmetric resistance. When survival and cultural preservation are paramount, retreat becomes not an act of surrender but a repositioning to prolong resistance. Modern resistance movements might benefit from such restraint, recognizing the importance of tactical withdrawal in preserving resources and avoiding entrapment in conflicts that inflict debilitating losses. Sun Tzu’s philosophy, which emphasizes that “supreme excellence lies in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting,” encourages a long-term vision. Resistance movements, even those facing overwhelming forces, may thus achieve enduring influence not by aiming for military victory but by prolonging their cultural and ideological presence.
Conclusion: Enduring Cultural Resilience
Sitting Bull’s strategic patience and alliance-building allowed his people to maintain cultural cohesion amid dispossession, a powerful testament to the merits of defensive resilience over offensive militancy. By focusing on preservation rather than conquest, Sitting Bull achieved what Sun Tzu might call “victory without war,” as he safeguarded his people’s culture and identity well beyond the battlefields. His legacy remains a powerful reminder of resistance rooted in enduring values, highlighting the potential of strategic patience, unity, and calculated engagement as tools for withstanding even the most powerful adversaries.
In contrast, Hamas’s more aggressive approach reveals the pitfalls of asymmetrical warfare that relies heavily on provocation and direct confrontation with a much stronger military power. Unlike Sitting Bull, Hamas often sacrifices cultural and civil resilience for immediate, albeit costly, displays of force. Such strategies highlight a fundamental divergence from the tenets of Sun Tzu, who cautions that provocation without the strength to sustain conflict can yield disastrous outcomes.
In examining Sitting Bull’s strategy, modern resistance movements may glean lessons from his defensive philosophy, focused on the protection and endurance of the community rather than high-cost offensives. This approach, rooted in the wisdom of Sun Tzu, suggests that underdog forces, when guided by clear objectives of preservation rather than destruction, can achieve a form of victory that resonates far beyond the battlefield. The resilience Sitting Bull championed underscores the power of a culturally grounded, patient resistance, presenting an enduring model of dignified opposition against overwhelming odds.
Bibliography
- Ambrose, Stephen E. Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors. Anchor Books, 1996.
- Marshall, Joseph M. The Journey of Crazy Horse: A Lakota History. Viking Penguin, 2004.
- Sun Tzu. The Art of War. Translated by Lionel Giles. Allandale Online Publishing, 2000.
- Utley, Robert M. The Lance and the Shield: The Life and Times of Sitting Bull. Holt, 1993.
- Shane Harris, Souad Mekhennet, and John Hudson. "Exclusive: Hamas Documents Reveal Sinwar's Planning with Iran." The Washington Post, October 12, 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/10/12/exclusive-hamas-documents-sinwar-planning-iran/
Comments