SharedThought

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!

President Bush regales us with tales of working untiringly to protect us from terrorists, and keeping us all safe. God bless him. But his own record belies the that claim. While most of us toil in our day jobs five days a week, fifty plus weeks a year, he spends most of his time either campaigning or on vacation. I realize I am engaging in a bit of hyperbole here, but am I wrong in the assumption that our President can do the job best while actually being present in Washington, D.C., and not on the road? Any familiar with the telecommuting experiment can testify that being away from the office, and absent your support staff and command structure is a formula for missed communications and lost opportunities.
If Mr. Bush’s goal is truly what he proclaims, I am bewildered by his absence from his base of operations. This is the man who was on a “working” vacation for the entire month of August 2001, during which time the infamous Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) entitled, “Bin Laden determined to attack inside the US”, was delivered to him and his staff. Despite previous attacks on the US and its interests by Osama Bin-Laden, this PDB was ignored. There was no executive direction to follow up on the issue. For excerpts from the memo, go to this site: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/
The World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks occurred on President Bush’s watch. Fully one month after the explicit warning from his intelligence resources. This is protecting the United States? How this makes him better equipped to deal with the mounting threat of terrorism is beyond me. It only bolsters evidence that the manner in which he once again ignores his own intelligence now about the state of affairs in Iraq is dangerous to our well-being. In the aftermath of the attacks, did Mr. Bush then buckle down and say in his mind, “My God, how did we miss this? How can we ensure this does not happen again? Let us leave no stone unturned in the quest to get to bottom of it!” Did he set his mind to working extremely hard, every waking moment, to thwart the terrorists, and the “Axis of Evil”? The evidence doesn’t point to it. In fact, this man is an absentee president. How can you lead if you’re not there? By telephone and fax? Ever try to run an office as a boss if you don’t show up to mind the store? You know what they say about mice and cats. The fact is, that this man and his foot soldiers did their best in the aftermath of 9/11 to prevent a broad investigation in to the roots of the intelligence and security failures which resulted in the disaster. Only under extreme duress from the families of the victims themselves, and their subsequent public airing of their complaints did this administration did the investigation really begin to take shape. See these links for a look at the truth of the matter. http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/05/1610361.php

And go to this link for a laundry list of obstructionist tactics by Bushco. http://www.rense.com/general37/brief.htm
Mr. Bush has spent all or part of over 500 days of his term away from Washington, D.C., whether at his ranch, Camp David, Kennebunkport, or elsewhere. This is not including the time he has spent, virtually since January 21, 2001, on the road in his campaign for re-election. Including those periods, our “War” president, the man guarding our future, and the person with the charge of protecting us from terror, has spent eighty percent of his term away from the White House.
Once again, idealist talking, but is it unreasonable to expect the leader of the Free World to show up at the office? Prior to the election in 2001, a central issue in my view was that W just wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed. My Republican friends assured me that this was just not very important, that that staff he had assembled was the key. That his staff was the real brains of the outfit, and that the President had only to then make his decisions based on staff input. If they are to blame, then make this election a referendum on their performance. However, this President has shown an unparalleled ability to ignore rational input from objective sources, and time after time makes decisions based in personal philosophical leanings, and not tangible evidence. He takes credit for he ability to make decisions and stay the course. But makes no room for the possibility that any decision could have been even one iota mistaken. This has placed the United States and its citizens more firmly in the sights of terrorists than ever. The scariest thing to me? I am now more afraid of my own government than of a terrorist attack. That is my fear.

Four More Years? God help us.

Recent polls seem to reflect an increase in the public’s support for Pretender-in chief Bush. Gallup has it at 13 percentage points. I view that number with a certain measure of disbelief. It is always easy to then do a search and find information on the Net to support or deny any perspective. I normally look for balanced input prior to writing for public consumption. Coincidentally, however, I was sent this link this morning, underscoring my opinion exactly.

The United States of America is at a political crossroad met seldom in one’s lifetime. Upon the coming presidential elections will depend the fate not just of our country, but of the world. Of this I am certain. The two mainstream candidates present distinct ideologies.

For purposes of expediency, I will only comment on our present leader in the White House. One whose rule is built on power and fear. Motivated by greed and cloaked in secrecy. Evincing an archaic philosophy marked by imperious disdain for the rules of law and the sanctity of human life. All the while proclaiming divine Providence in justification of their actions, although justification is not exactly the right word, for that would imply recognition of a need to justify their deeds. This administration is unabashed when questioned regarding any action, inaction, misdeed, or even criminal act committed on their watch.

Mr. Bush calls himself Christian, compassionate, conservative. His actions belie those labels. In truth, he behaves neither as a Christian, compassionate, nor truly conservative.

True Christian compassion involves extending a helping hand to the least of us. By lifting up those at the bottom, we raise the standard of all society. This has not occurred on his watch. More of our citizens suffer in poverty now than four years ago. Our seniors have Medicaid and Medicare, which entitlements obtain merely by reaching a certain age. Why should the sons and daughters of our poor suffer from a lack of health care purely based on economics? Our youth are our future and deserve our attention if truly are looking to that future. As Jesus said in Matthew 25, “Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.”

True Christian compassion does not lead to the increased execution of your own citizens. Mr. Bush’s Attorney General goes the extra mile in his efforts to override local prosecutors when he feels the death penalty is appropriate in a case, irrespective of the fact that the prosecutors recommend otherwise http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0207-03.htm.

True Christian compassion does not leap to release the dogs of war and revel in the deaths of our enemies. An honorable, American president does not start a war based on the flimsiest of evidence. An honorable, American president views war as the last unreasonable alternative, for war is the absolute ultimate failure of policy and diplomacy. It does not seek ever more efficient killing machines. Our current leader has re-instituted the development of new nuclear weapons, abrogating our thirty-four years of membership in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2780521.stm

True Christian compassion honors and respects life. This administration flouts the Geneva Convention, invoking spurious rationale for the mistreatment, unlawful detainment, torture, and killing of prisoners, both in the US and abroad. An honorable, American president does not condone the practice of holding a prisoner without access to counsel or visitation. An honorable, American president does not allow his subordinates to deny the Red Cross access to prisoners. An honorable, American president does not allow prisoners to be held without even informing said prisoner of the charges under which (s) he is held. This is something to be expected of a third world dictator, not of an American leader.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guantanamo/story/0,13743,1127639,00.html

An honorable, American president is tolerant to dissent in the arena of democratic, public discourse. Mr. Bush labels it unpatriotic and divisive.

An honorable, American president does not repeat ad nauseam the “Big Lie” of 9/11, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, and Saddam Hussein as the case for an elective war. Here is how the Big Lie works. It is simply a matter of conditioned response. I f you repeat something enough times, it does not make any difference if there are logical connections. The mere utterance of weapons of mass destruction now brings to mind Saddam Hussein, 9/11, and terrorism. Whether you agree with the argument or not, that is what is present in your subconscious mind. The current republican leadership counts on people not taking the time to actually think for themselves. With a bit of quick research, any intelligent person could find enough evidence to call into question the motivation for and evidence being relied upon to make a case for war, let alone continuing along the path being followed. Make no mistake about it, this was a war of choice, not necessity. When presented with evidence all to the contrary, the honorable man admits his mistakes and then takes steps to rectify them. We have yet to see this type of integrity from our sitting commander-in-chief.

“In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table,” Bush said. “But make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will win.”

The evidence for this victory? The 2003 edition of “Patterns of Global Terrorism”, released by the US Department of State on April 29, 2004. Front page news. Problem is, on June 22, 2004, a revised report detailing the real story was released by the State Department. In it the numbers show that in actuality, the number of worldwide terrorist attacks increased by just under ten percent for the year, and casualties increased by over two hundred and twenty-five percent!! Just another example of evidence being “massaged” by the Bush administration.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5865710/
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/10/powell.terror.report/
http://globalsecurity.org/security/library/report/2004/pgt_2003/

The truth is, this man makes me embarrassed for the United States. The country I know and love has been subverted to an agenda of Christian dogma, misdirection, hateful rhetoric and intolerance. President Bush is NOT a uniter, he is an excluder. NOT compassionate, but impassionate to those in real need. The face put forth by the Republicans at their recent convention was a mask. The only time we got a peek behind that mask was during Democratic Senator Zell Miller’s speech. Whether knowingly or not, he was showing the true attack dog, irrational, spittle flecked face of our ruling party. This is the face of a party unfamiliar with the concept of compromise and bipartisan interest. A party which treats those in disagreement with contempt. The best interests of our great nation are not served while President Bush is in office. He has not focused any energy on being a member of the world community, but has sent a message to the world during his tenure, one of self-centered self-importance. The result can only be on of further isolation and estrangement of America from the other 95% of earth’s population. This week the President gave us a warm and fuzzy speech full of programs to help those in need over the next four years. That left me wondering. Where was he the last four years? What happened to the compassionate platform he proposed in the year 2000?

Since his inauguration, the president and his staff have taken advantage of tragedy to create a bastard son of the United States which I grew up to know and love. My United States stood for right, not might. My United States had a conscience. My United States was founded in integrity, honor and respect. My United States didn’t need to hide prisoners and obstruct inquiries into its actions. My United States is confident that, in the light of day, their actions may withstand the most detailed scrutiny from all sides.

An idealist, I admit. But is it too much to expect our leaders possess those qualities admired by all? When our president leads by fostering a climate of fear and retribution, it can only serve to bring out those very qualities in our people. Only by being strong enough not to fall prey to the baser instincts of man can our leaders hope to lead us to a better world. In this respect, President Bush is an abject failure and has earned a place on the sidelines in America’s future.