Hmm, to try and take this in a philosophical direction . . . Maybe
In general conflict (not necessarily physical, but also political, and intellectual), you also have these two basic options, which, at the root, are the same, just applied in different ways. Napoleon understood these very well.
First, you have the "power" method on controlling people - this is typically a threat, or actual action, of escalating the stakes, in hopes that either the other will submit, or be overpowered. In poker, this would be "raising." It could be a bluff, or it could not. The basic method of thought is "is it worth it to you to find out?"
Napoleon used this tactic as a full-frontal attack, called an "Attrition Attack" (strength-on-strength.) This method is usually used when one has the advantage, or the perceived advantage. Both sides slug it out until one side submits. (surrender or retreat.)
Next, you have a "manipulation" method. This is useful for when you want to achieve a certain, specific, goal, and aren't as concerned about dominating another. It is still a question of power, but that power is applied in different ways. In business, or politics, it could be in the form of "deals" that are made: "I won't stand in your way for what you want, and you won't stand in my way for what I want." You aren't facing down the opponent, but are side-stepping the largest area of conflict, to achieve your own goals. Napoleon used this as a "Maneuvering Attack." He avoided the main force, and flanked his opponents. Or, in MA terms, you allow the attack to come, then side-step and throw, lock, or otherwise manipulate your opponent into a weaker position. (Unconscious is good.)
But at the root of it, both systems are the same. I believe that no one truly holds "power" over another. Personal power is "sold" to others to get what you want. Someone may "sell" 40 hours or so of their personal time, and submit to a boss, in order to get money. Someone may also choose to submit to a loss of money, in order to maintain health. (I.E. strong-arm robbery.) That's why the "do it or die" option is actually an option, although a lousy one.
In the first system, the exchange of power leaves one side at a loss. "Give up, and you won't lose what you already have." At least at first. It's an obvious threat, and so it is very efficient, but it doesn't make us feel as warm and gooey. Plus, it makes the looser feel terrible, actually, it makes them feel like a looser.
In the second system, the exchange of power is a lot more subtle, and is hidden behind a promise of mutual benefit (and sometimes it does work that way) but the intent is still to put yourself in a position of power over the other. However, in this system, it looks more peaceful, and almost as though everybody is working as a team. In the heart of it, though, it's still a conflict, and one side will end up a position of dominance. Perhaps, though, there will be less loss sustained by both sides, and so this type of conflict is easier on our consciouses. Done right, the looser will feel proud of himself, and not realize he has lost, until it's too late. This is common in chess: I may offer you my bishop for capture, but I will take your rook.
In MA terms, this could be comparable to avoiding and redirecting.
But don't be misled: Both are a form of conflict, and both are aimed at dominance. One dominates by the promise of loss, and the other by a false promise of gain. Dominance itself is neither good nor evil, but what is done once the dominance is achieved. The method of obtaining that dominance is neither good nor evil, but what is the intent behind the need for dominance.
