Gen. Sarath Fonseka, Chief of Defence Staff, was recently invited as key note speaker by the Postgraduate Institute of Management Alumni (PIMA) to speak on the topic Winning Military Strategies: Lessons for Managers. The address by the ex-Army Commander was made in context of PIM’s quest to become a community of thought leaders committed to shaping the nation’s socio-economic fabric. He enlightened the audience about the unique Sri Lankan experience applied in the military effort that could well be applied in the business world, too.
The complex planning and strategizing described by him that went into winning the war was indeed awesome. He was the chief architect responsible for strategy, restructure, and implementation of the entire war. The small group guerilla tactics of’ ‘search and kill’ in contrast to conventional battles for territorial conquests was the major deviation from previous war strategies. The strategy was implemented with clinical precision and thus effective in achieving a kill rate that stealthily and steadily destroyed the enemy despite no major show of grand battle successes. The strategy was amply supported by exorbitant and unaffordable but effective state of the art defence technology which gave a clear edge over the enemy. Intensive and incessant attack and bombardment of enemy territory, despite overwhelming obstacles, was also a key feature of the winning strategy according to the General.
It is worth evaluating how war strategy described by the army chief can provide lessons to the business community in shaping the nation’s economic fabric. Firstly, the war strategy described by him was not a war of conquest but of destruction and killing. This objective alone diminished the legitimacy of the war. The state has a right to defend its citizens against terrorism but the manner in which it does so is of critical importance. Use of extra judicial methods of eliminating a section of its own citizens who are suspect enemies of the state is not only illegal but also criminal because those very same suspect citizens are also dependent on the state for protection of their fundamental rights. Hence there exists the necessity for legitimate conduct by a democratically elected government in contrast to a de facto terrorist organization which uses violence to achieve its ends. Â Hence state sponsored violence targeting the elimination of a group of persons, in particular its own citizens, is an illegitimate act or war crime and evolves into genocide if it targets an identifiable community. Therefore, it can be argued that the ‘much admired’ war strategy of the General, in reality, totally shattered the moral basis of the government’s defence of the state.
Maybe what the General only wanted to convey to business leaders was how they can mimic counter terrorist tactics when competing in a business environment? Sounds innovative in theory but could be a tad inappropriate in practice. However, the business world does not really need much tutoring in cut throat practices as we all know, particularly with regard to the practice of ethical business and social responsibility which are abysmally deficient. Another moot point is why did the Commander fail to include ‘Team Effort’ as a part of his war strategy, a key concept in business, or was it simply a matter of ego. Such an awesome victory could  never have been  achieved without dedicated team effort. The top team led by the army would undoubtedly have included the air force and navy leadership who were not given any credit. In fact, the Commander slighted them by stating that their effectiveness was mainly on account of his outstanding military intelligence support, once again, a service upgraded by him.
Can the anticipated fruits of war victory such as restoration of peace, social stability and economic progress be achieved in consideration of the deleterious consequences of a morally unacceptable military option which has caused colossal death, destruction and consequential hatred, pain and suffering as well as  residual psychological trauma through the continued persecution of IDP’s as suspect enemies? Not to mention the irretrievable financial penury and insurmountable indebtedness in which the country has fallen into as a consequence and thereby victimized several generations of Sri Lankans well into the future.
In the above context, can the business community under the stewardship of PIMA justify learning lessons from winning military strategies of the ‘esteemed’ General? Isn’t the business community purely towing the government’s line in order to safe guard their business empires to the detriment of national interests by inviting the most inappropriate strategist to counsel them?
Doesn’t the entire episode remind one of the famed fable ‘The Emperor’s New Clothes’ where courtiers and citizens alike fawned over the imaginary golden garb, flaunted by a egoistic emperor, purely  to secure their personal positions of power until a lone voice pointed out the disgusting truth and stupidity of the situation.