The Art of War in Iraq?
Reading through a bit of Sun Tzu recently, I could not help but come to a few conclusions. Two millennia have really not made his (their) conclusions any less viable. When the Art of War was written, China had four thousand years of history from which to learn about martial action. As philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.
The Art of War, Sun Tzu
Spies cannot be usefully employed without a certain intuitive sagacity; (2) They cannot be properly managed without benevolence and straight forwardness; (3) Without subtle ingenuity of mind, one cannot make certain of the truth of their reports.
It is undisputed that the United States was duped by Iraqi expatriates and Baathist insiders prior to the invasion, and fed volumes of misinformation. And the words “subtle” and “ingenuity” are not found in the Bush administration’s vocabulary.
He who wishes to fight must first count the cost. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be dampened. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor dampened, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue… In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
The cost of this elective war, in lives, prestige, or dollars, was never honestly calculated, at least not publicly.
He who exercises no forethought, but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them. The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory. No leader should put troops into the field merely to gratify his own spleen; no leader should fight a battle simply out of pique. Hence the enlightened leader is heedful, and the good leader full of caution.
Is there really an argument that we were rash in our leap to release the dogs of war? That we made light of the fact that we were setting out to wage a vengeful war? Attacking out of displaced anger? Riding the crest of a wave of lies?
To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. Indirect tactics, efficiently applied, are inexhaustible as heaven and earth, unending as the flow of rivers and streams; like the sun and the moon, they end but to begin anew; like the four seasons, they pass away to return once more.
Ahhh, the true crux of the issue. Sun Tzu, twenty-five hundred years ago, recognized the value in seeing issues from your enemy’s perspective. Isn’t it common sense that there is value in trying to understand why these people hate us so much? Is there any dialogue going on, right now, with Muslim leaders, even those belonging to the insurgency? Any attempt to get into the heads of our foes? Is diplomacy now a four-letter word? Or are our leaders only able to make their point or share ideas at gunpoint?
Throw your soldiers into positions whence there is no escape, and they will prefer death to flight. If they will face death, there is nothing they may not achieve.
This pertains to the terrorists, and insurgency. The point is, that, justified or not, there is a certain percentage of Muslims in this world that feel threatened by the United States and its policies. In the face of this perceived threat, these fighters will not retreat from the fight. Should we merely maintain our present course in the world and feign blindness to the consequences of our actions? And when we run into dissent, or are attacked, continue to send out teams of killers to “protect” our interests? Or attempt to initiate a dialogue? To reach some sort of understanding? Recognize that we can’t behave as though we live in a vacuum? Which has greater value? Don’t we all benefit from having more friends in the world? We may make enemies with our words and policies, but I am sure we never made a friend by shooting them. We have created more enemies than we have quelled.
Our enemies multiply faster than we can kill them, and we “stay the course”. In the face of increasing insurgency, we “stay the course”. Terrorists pour into the country, and we “stay the course”. I say, “Just say NO!”
He who can modify his tactics in relation to his opponent and thereby succeed in winning, may be called a heaven-born captain. For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the supreme of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence.
There is still time to change the road we’re on. But not much. Make this election a referendum on the war-mongering, isolationist policies of the Bush administration. Send them packing!
The The Art of War in Iraq? by SharedThought, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.