A Brief Treatise on the Effectiveness of Treachery

 

 

"No enterprise is more likely to succeed than one concealed from the enemy until it is ripe for execution."--Machiavelli

 

Well, if anyone should know it would be Machiavelli, but I will probably refer to a few others for wisdom beyond mine before I'm done with this piece. I suppose for the sake of this piece we could exchange 'enemy' in the quote for 'victim.' I suppose too that the classical references I will be using seem overly dramatic to most, but in this day and age, how often are the lowest ebbs of office politics as damaging to one as more traditional betrayals have been in the past?

 

If you are reading this with the notion that there is going to be a moral at the end of the story or that it is going to be a discourse on ethics or principles, please read the title again. The effectiveness of treachery has nothing to do with the right or wrong of treachery. In point of fact, I believe that most people who engage in betrayal, treachery, and/or treason have convinced themselves that it is the right thing to do in their circumstances. Call to mind Brutus pushing his dagger into Caesar or Judas kissing Jesus on the cheek in the Garden of Gesthemane. Machiavelli is, after all, also the man credited with being first to use the expression "the ends justify the means." Of course, really well thought out and executed betrayal takes teamwork and the players can reassure each other of the righteousness of their actions Traitors generally though have two motivations for their behaviour that none of them are willing to admit to another person, first that they are afraid to confront the person they are betraying and second (and equally important to them) they will not have to face consequences for their actions. One will also find that there are any number of greed related motivations for treachery and betrayal and often people involved in the same act of treachery will have varying circumstances surrounding their own motives. Thus, no philosophical discourse is required because there is no right involved, but if it is a path one wishes to embark upon, is it effective?

 

"All war is based on deception"--Sun Tzu

 

Most people who can suffer themselves to believe their own (or their fellow traitors') lies that it is the appropriate action will have also convinced themselves well beforehand that it is effective because if it isn't going to work, there will be those frightening consequences to face. These are generally short term thinkers who are most easily spotted by the way they fall back into their familiar patterns and breathe sighs of happy relief if after some period of time, weeks or months, the victim seems to have withered away and failed to respond. Of course, one of the more nagging concerns that these people now have is an awareness that they have surrounded themselves with people they cannot trust. Obviously, if they were part of the team who betrayed one person, what is preventing other members of that group from turning on them?  The other reality of course is in the quote above by Sun Tzu. If someone or some group used treachery to dispatch me, then that person or group has essentially declared war on me. Even the feeblest thinkers among us must know that one should never underestimate one's enemy. The passage of time is meaningless unless that enemy has been well and truly destroyed. Let's go back to our first source, since he's credited with writing the handbook on treacherous behavior and see what we can learn.

 

"If an injury is to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared"--Machiavelli

 

Now, this is where I begin to question the effectiveness of using underhanded means to attack someone. If you are the person undertaking one of these schemes, and we'll look into that a bit more a little further on, ask yourself this question. Can (_____) ever come back on me for what I did? Because be assured, that person (____) will figure out that you were the traitor or at least part of the betrayal.

 

The actual treachery is not generally a difficult thing to figure out.  All it takes is a couple of friends, there are other methods, but the best ways have always involved betrayal by someone the victim really cared about. Again, ask Christ, ask Caesar. Let's call our victim Joe. Joe has some level of authority or power. People envy him for that. Joe may have control over a lot of resources including money. People are greedy and jealous of that. Joe has made some enemies and has a few intimate friends. If Joe makes a mistake of hurting even one of those friends, two is better from the enemies' viewpoint, they now have their mode of attack. The enemies which Joe is aware of dial up their usual assaults, whatever they may be:slanderous attacks, constant public complaining about Joe's work, more and more demands on the resources for which Joe is responsible--this keeps him distracted, and then they have the embittered friend develop the final attack. Something so defaming that Joe is ruined in public and with his friends and family, and removed from control over the resources he had influence over and the job is done.The fix is in. But is it really? Sooner or later, the so-called friends will show their hands and Joe, quite embittered himself now, will recognize them for what they are. As far as good quotes go, remember this one:

 

"there is no knife that cuts so sharply and with such poisoned blade as treachery" --Ouida

 

And of course, the question that it was recommended one ask one's self earlier, is Joe so thoroughly defeated that he is no longer a force to worry about? There is another old expression about people refusing to learn from the mistakes of history. I believe I alluded to short term thinkers earlier in this article. Very few people have the fortitude to deliver the 'final blow' at the risk of sounding melodramatic to our "Joe". That shouldn't be a surprise considering that the treaachery is usually hatched by a cabal of cowards to begin with and if they do not have the presence of mind to take measures to protect themselves from the fallout of the treachery it is to their own undoing. They are probably too busy worrying about one another's treacherous personae than to worry about the damage they've already done. So, is the activity effective or even efficient for the participants?

 

"I am justly killed with mine own treachery"--Laertes in Hamlet by William Shakespear

 

One of the great murders in all of literature, Laertes died from the poison he had applied to a sword with which to kill Hamlet. Perhaps there is a moral to this story after all or lessons to be had from history. Brutus was destroyed by Caesar's nephew's army and 'fell on his own sword'. The Rome he meant to save from an ambitious Caesar became the empire of quite possibly the most ambitious man in history. Judas hung around after the crucifixion. Benedict Arnold hung around after the American Revolution. A final thought, aother quote from out of time:

 

"Treachery, though at first cautious, in the end betrays itself"--Titus Livy