Shaping the nation’s fabric through Gen. Sarath Fonseka’s winning military strategies
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.
21 Comments
Leave a Reply
Subscribe to Content Updates
iPhone app
@ Not so concerned citizen,
I was @ the presentation myself, and am dumbfounded to see your ignorance to say the least. I believe that criticism is what helps us evolve and reinvent ourselves. But when malice, ignorance, stupidity, NGO thoughts and rumor are regarded as feedback, there can be no constructive dialogue. You have missed the point here. It was about Vision, Goals, Strategy, Ruthless implementation of same, Evaluation etc.. I found it pretty interesting and valuable. Infact I would attend more such seminars and learn not only from the army chief but even from frontline soldiers. There’s certainly a lesson to learn. On the contrary though your blog post shows your ignorance. Sorry, but there’s so much business leaders learn from General Fonseka. Since you have branded him “the most inappropriate” guy around, I’d also like to know who (in your opinion) is the most appropriate strategist to counsel the business community? Your NGO pals ?
LOL..
Please do learn to appreciate our armed forces rather than use your writting skills to paint a nasty image. Yes you can have your freedom of expression, but let’s not forget freedom of expression does come with responsibility. Please use this weblog in a constructive manner. I doubt if my comment will pass through your moderation, but please don’t delete this.
Thank you.
PIMA never intended to know what they already know. “Team Effort” “Morality” all are generic concepts that any fool will utter with or without knowing the underlying meaning. Gen Fonseka is not trained business nor in diplomacy. So it is foolish to expect this sort of nonsence. PIMA just wanted get firsthand information from from a leader who accomplish a unique feat. That is his side of storey you can take it or leave it.
“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”
Did he mention something about extra judicial killing ?
can you please adivice how best terrorism cam be eliminated especially when the terrorist intend to kill not negotiate.?
why have you become so personal in your criticism tarnishing the image of a General who put a stop to 30 years of bloody war ; a menace to citizens of Sri Lanka ; sinhalese,Tamils and Muslims but a boon to polticians, media jakals like you and many INGOs ,NGOs who had other interests in the war-torn areas.
The LTTE had not only violated human rights but also were not abiding by any of the rules of conventional war. Therefore, it had no right to expect its targets (the people of Sri Lanka and their Govt) to fight a conventional war. Nor, whilst it continued to fight a war without any respect of the rights of non-combatants (eg under the Geneva Convention), can it expect its targets to anything other than search and destroy them. What the General did was so logical one marvels as to why it took them so long to come to this strategy.
I also cannot see any connection between the General’s statements to the PIMA and the following diatribe about human rights violations. If the author wants to write about human rights violations why not do so without having to involve some irrelevent comments about a speech to the PIMA as a fig leaf.
Sadly, whilst the article raises some important issues, it is so very clearly biased, unobjective and a rambling drivel that it has only served to damage the cause of criticism of the SL Government’s record on human rights.
Reply to Nibras, You said itI I totally agree with you. the war strategy is the perfect example of ruthless implementation. I don’t like that style, man.
Reply To Tharaka, agreed it is an unique feat but definitely not a model for business strategy
Reply To Ratty, I described it as extra judicial killing as it was ‘search and kill’ tactics not ‘battle to conquer’ tactics
anyway,thanks guys for your criticsism which is what the democratic process is all about. thanks to ground views for this great opportunity. Even if I can’t convince you guys, I may have influenced many others. chill out and don’t be rude cos’ rudeness is a weak man’s show of strength. love, peace and happiness.
Fonseka has more to teach us than any NGO cabal or their hangers on. Dear “concerned citizen”, exactly what have YOU achieved for the country? It’s pretty sad that you have to resort to publicly attacking someone because you seem unhappy with the fact that he has destroyed the biggest menace to Sri Lanka – the Tamil Tigers. The business community, I think, could learn a lot from the general. What we need is many Fonsekas in the business community, and Sri Lanka will be well set up to take on the world and emerge as an economic lion.
Whether Its a model success will depend on the context you apply these learning.
For example companies trying to each others throat by applying same tackticks offered by their enemies. e.g Telecom industry price war everybody lose. None of them them has the ability fight a different war. Army under Gen Fonseka fought different war rightway or wrongway , morally or immoraly. Coming back to business context does businesses care morality what matter at the end is whether you are winning the war not. Anyway thats how history would look at it. We celabrate Alexender, Kublai Khan, Gengis Khan. Business school study there strategies in relation to business strategy. “Concerened Citizen” would have no problem in celebrating them if they dished out in sugar coated western text books. This is something local who cares!!!!
KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) — The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan said Saturday he was convinced that civilians, in addition to militants, were among those wounded in a NATO airstrike that killed at least 90 people in northern Afghanistan.
Ethics is very important in the business world. For example, investment. There are things you can do and things you can’t do and regulatory bodies to ensure no one steps out of line. No one in the business world, not even the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, would be given a free hand like Fonseka was. Fonseka’s goal was very simple: to corner as many LTTE into a tiny strip of land, cut off all the escape routes, and then mercilessly decimate them. Civilians were a liability, not an asset; they were given the exact same treatment as LTTE when circumstances called for it. There was no regulatory body, e.g. media. Public opinion did not really matter. The only parallel I can draw to the business world is that of children slaving away in mines and factories during the Industrial Revolution, for people like Carnegie and Rockefeller before labor unions came along.
In retrospect, I doubt Fonseka would make it in the business world. He would probably not survive the ethics and sensitivity training; if he did, the die-hard strategies he put in place would not always sit well with those below him. As for public relations, that would be a nightmare.
it is joke and foolishness by asking a butcher to come and speak , do not do PIM mba,
where is the morality
Who says Gen Fonseka going to become a business. Most of you talk as if in the storey of elephant and seven blind men. To me if there is any business lesson to be learn from Gen Fonseka is about business strategy. Strategy is nothing but your stand competing in the market. Here Gen Fonseka adopted strategy not to engage huge scale wars like in the past. Not too concerened about land but concentrate on the enemy. Reduce there numbers little by little. So you may what in it for business. Look at the way business compete whith each other. Most of them compete using huge campaigns. A lot of money pured in in ineffective advertising. At the end what they would want is more customers for themself and less for the competitor. So rather than trying to destroy the competitor in one day device a campaign which run over longer period. Concentrate on few customers at time. Understand their needs and try to win over the competitor. This is a kind of analogy I find with respect to business.
Ethics are important so if you dont have lessons to learn in this dont take it. Take what you can arther looking through a coloured lences avoiding the total picture.
Yes we saw so many “Morally correct” business leaders virtually begging through NGO’s to do business in their dream eelam land. Now all of them caught red handed and in remand.
Ruwan for not doing MBA at PIM. Good for you do it at Imperial College and serve your white master. Do not do it at colombo also because they gave a Doctorate to Gota. Do not visit out side colombo all of them voted for Mahinda. Its ok serve INGO who plunndered tsunami money to build luxury bunkers for peelam king. Its ok to keep your mouth shut for human shields.
Gen.Sarath Fonseka did his job to the best of his ability risking his own life and his families.
ALL other military chiefs FAILED to achieve what he managed.
I believe he was successful because:
1. He studied his enemies.
2.He planned each activity.
3.He promoted people based on skill and expertise in battle.
4.He was uncompromising in achieving tasks assigned to him.
5.From what we know he is not corrupt.
WELL THESE ARE THINGS NOT MANAGERS OR COPORATE SECTOR SHOULD FOLLOW. THESE ARE THE PRINCIPLES THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF SRI LANKA AND THE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE SHOULD FOLLOW.
IF THEY DO THE COUNTRY WILL PROSPER IF NOT WE WILL FAIL MISERABLY.
I believe he was successful because:
1. He studied his enemies.
2.He planned each activity.
3.He promoted people based on skill and expertise in battle.
4.He was uncompromising in achieving tasks assigned to him.
5.From what we know he is not corrupt.
Let me add to this list.
6. Had help from China
7. Had help from Iran
8. Had help from India
9. Had soldiers from India
10. Was allowed to kill anyone who got in his way, whether Lasantha W. or a Tamil civilian hiding in a bunker
11. Was allowed to drop as many bombs on Tamil civilians as he wanted
12. Was allowed to kill any LTTE who surrendered, on site (as execution video shows)
13. Did not have to answer to any media
———————————————————-
No business in the real world can run like this. For example, the media is very important in advertising. One cannot send white vans to hunt down unfriendly media. One cannot execute opponents. One can drive them out of business, sure. Any business in the real world runs the risk of failure, on a day-to-day business. To minimize this failure, experts are hired. But these experts are not free. They charge very high consulting fees. The free help that Sarath got from India,China, Pakistan,etc. – this does not happen in the business world. If a business is not self-sufficient, it files for bankruptcy. There are a few exceptions as we have seen during the Recession, but that is extremely unusual.
So now, based on the above, it is obvious that Fonseka could not run a business like he ran the military. Businesses ply their trade on the market, and the market is all about competition. Competition is not possible without regulation. There is no regulation in the Sri Lanka Army, and Fonseka knows it well.
*on a day-to-day basis
Fonseka should also explain why 10,000 Sri Lanka Army soldiers died and how many were permanently disabled. He should also explain what benefits these soldiers get. A mud hut on a few acres of land? What kind of way is that to treat the workers?
Heshan your points are applicabe if the PIMA session was about HR and ethics. PIMA session was abouit strategy. In strategy you dont talk in details. You think and work holistically. Its simply abbut capitalising your oppotunities using your streanghts and mitigating your threats by moving out from your weak areas. From the perspective of business strategy that is all that matters.
No business strategy can ignore market conditions and market factors. Even monopolies are not immune. As I said, Fonseka fought his war in a vacuum. In today’s world, you can’t run a business in a vacuum. Therefore, Fonseka’s “strategy” of capitalizing one’s personal strengths and mitigating the opponent’s is not something he engaged in on any scale comparable to what a real business undergoes. Fonseka was allowed to mitigate the enemy using unrealistic and improbable methods that have no parallel in the civilian world. Could he have done it any other way… if the answer is no, then we definitely cannot draw a comparison to any business model. What good is a model if it can’t be tweaked and scaled to fit the appropriate circumstances? As I said, “vacuum.” What he did is only reproducible at a great cost.
*What he did is only reproducible at a great cost.*
If it is reproducible in the first place.
Tells you what the business community is all about; racism, greed and fleeting fads. The business community has been part and parcel of the propagation of this racist war.
Not at all surprised that PIMA invited Sarath Fonseka. Lesson to be learnt for business: if your competitor tries to beat you, Kill him!
Sarath Fonseka strategist in killing but NGO’s strategists in saving!
Gen Fonseka had the following two in the mind with the support of the state.
Above all, before drawing the correct strategy, he saw the problem correctly. With that he made these conclusions,
- LTTE will never ever come to a negotiated settlement via talks
- Given right strategy LTTE can be defeated.