Atreides
Jedi Master
I think the quote has been horribly taken out of context. It is a maxim for war and a way to seek and convert Allies. It is absolutely never a good idea to expect an enemy of your enemy to be your actual friend, it was never intended to mean that. It is strategic shorthand for:
I have an enemy. I wish to destroy that enemy. To do so, I will need help. The first place to look for that help is any person who shares my desire to destroy my current enemy. Therefore I should begin to look for allies among the enemies of my enemy.
---
The problem is this: From a strategic point of view, friend does not mean the same thing to a strategist as it does to your average person. A friend is someone who's personal interest is currently served best by you not dying. When that changes, they are no longer your friend. An enemy is someone who's personal interest is best served by your destruction, or your personal interest is best served by their destruction.
There are so many other rules that must be applied, that is, the best enemy of your enemy is the weakest, because they could never destroy the enemy without your help, and once you are done with your enemy, you can destroy or oppress them easiest. Rome was very fond of this strategy, uniting small city states against larger empires, and then when they were done, turning on, or abandoning those who helped them.
The rules apply in stacking order, so it's not just one rule to rule them all, here are some of the considerations when applying the enemy of my enemy rule:
Never fight a battle you can get someone else to fight for you.
Never ally yourself with someone more powerful than you.
Never increase an ally in strength, maintain them, or destroy them.
Choose an ally from the weakest of your enemy's enemies, preferably someone who has been unjustly slighted.
Promise more than you intend to deliver.
It also doesn't literally mean to ally yourself, you can for instance approach through an intermediary and, making the case that you are occupying the enemy in the west, that your enemy's enemy now has the chance to seize back something lost in the east, or to raid or some such thing. By appealing to their opportunistic self-interest, you can have an ally that doesn't fully realize he is helping you.
You should read the Prince and Republics, and The Art of War, the chairman mao and the Sun Tzu version, as well as anything by Liddell Hart on WWII. You should also read the dawn of the roman empire by Livy, paying special attention to Phillip, his sons, and how the romans dealt with them.
So the short answer is no, with your (normal, healthy and human) definition of friend and enemy, that maxim will never ever apply to you. Nor should it.
I have an enemy. I wish to destroy that enemy. To do so, I will need help. The first place to look for that help is any person who shares my desire to destroy my current enemy. Therefore I should begin to look for allies among the enemies of my enemy.
---
The problem is this: From a strategic point of view, friend does not mean the same thing to a strategist as it does to your average person. A friend is someone who's personal interest is currently served best by you not dying. When that changes, they are no longer your friend. An enemy is someone who's personal interest is best served by your destruction, or your personal interest is best served by their destruction.
There are so many other rules that must be applied, that is, the best enemy of your enemy is the weakest, because they could never destroy the enemy without your help, and once you are done with your enemy, you can destroy or oppress them easiest. Rome was very fond of this strategy, uniting small city states against larger empires, and then when they were done, turning on, or abandoning those who helped them.
The rules apply in stacking order, so it's not just one rule to rule them all, here are some of the considerations when applying the enemy of my enemy rule:
Never fight a battle you can get someone else to fight for you.
Never ally yourself with someone more powerful than you.
Never increase an ally in strength, maintain them, or destroy them.
Choose an ally from the weakest of your enemy's enemies, preferably someone who has been unjustly slighted.
Promise more than you intend to deliver.
It also doesn't literally mean to ally yourself, you can for instance approach through an intermediary and, making the case that you are occupying the enemy in the west, that your enemy's enemy now has the chance to seize back something lost in the east, or to raid or some such thing. By appealing to their opportunistic self-interest, you can have an ally that doesn't fully realize he is helping you.
You should read the Prince and Republics, and The Art of War, the chairman mao and the Sun Tzu version, as well as anything by Liddell Hart on WWII. You should also read the dawn of the roman empire by Livy, paying special attention to Phillip, his sons, and how the romans dealt with them.
So the short answer is no, with your (normal, healthy and human) definition of friend and enemy, that maxim will never ever apply to you. Nor should it.
