Sun Tzu on Today's War

I’d like to introduce myself to you all Freepers by laying down some Sun Tzu. The principles from the book The Art of War work amazingly well in more elements of life than you could ever imagine. They are “permanent things.” -For all of you fellow Taoists. This is an essay I wrote to explain to uniformed liberals the larger picture of the War on Terror. It starts out in a way that may be a little too elementary for this board but it picks up and gets forward-looking toward the end. I look forward to engaging you all in mind-to-mind combat. En Guarde!

“Offensive strategy #10 Thus, those skilled in war subdue the enemy’s army without battle. They capture his cities without assaulting them and overthrow his state without protracted operations. “ This is the goal. Overthrow the tyrannical oligarchies who sponsor terrorism and bring democracy and do it with as little battling as possible. I still think it’s a worthwhile cause. Perhaps the most worthwhile our world has ever known considering the other side is about to get nukes.

“Estimates #25 When he is united, divide him. “ Would you rather be at war today with Iran and Syria(one in the same) Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia AND Egypt? Of course, not. After 9/11, the first thing was to look at the countries in the region and figure out which were our friends and which enemies we could subdue and with whom we can make a truce through diplomacy. UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, Yemen, Jordan, Turkey, Egypt, would be on our side or at least neutral. The biggest bullies on the block were Saddam in Iraq, the Ayatollah in Iran and the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia.

The Saudis and Iranians both have radical elements that want a united theocracy. Those radical elements are in charge in Iran. In Saudi where the royal family is calling the shots, the radicals are Wahhabi clerics. Primarily Iran wants to unify the Muslim world under their form of fundamentalist religion but the Wahhabists would love it too. Iran really has it’s sights set on Mecca and Medina but that’s their long-range goal.

What they all have in common with guys like Saddam and Yasser Arafat is that they don’t want democracy in the region. They want power to enrich themselves and they’ll cause the chaos in the region that justifies their stranglehold on the revolutionaries in their countries who strive for liberty. They want to increase their share of the oil and they want to kill infidels.

“Offensive strategy #5 Next best is to disrupt his alliances.” Saudi Arabia ruling family has always had a handshake deal with American leadership on both sides of the aisle that we’d turn a blind eye to the brutal tactics and rigid Wahhabism they allowed their county‘s clerics to inflict on their people. So long as they would allow for Israel and cooperate in the oil business. We all now know how Al Qaeda came to fame. It was primarily a Saudi Sunni group harbored by the Taliban in Afghanistan with ties to Egypt and roots across Africa(which will come back to bite us if we stem the growth of Islamists in Sudan, Chad and Somalia. Cut at the root, the tree dies).

The house of Saud got made an offer it couldn’t refuse. It needed to squash funding to al Qaeda and moderate its radical wahhabists. It also needed to be an ally in the war against rogue nations. Do that and we’d black out the elements of the 9/11 report that deal with Saudi. Don’t do it and we’d add them to the “axis of evil.” It was obvious they took the deal when Osama bombed them too. To seal the deal we pulled our troops out of Saudi to Qatar.

With Saudi in a box because the royal family was now helping us fight al Qaeda too, the lone biggest bullies on the block were Iraq and Iran. Iraq wasn’t in control of Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah like Iran is. But Hussein was buying influence with these groups by rewarding the families of suicide bombers for example.

Afghanistan was the obvious first target. A strong showing there could shore up Musharef in Pakistan and turn him to a strong ally. It would also scare the shit out of Iran whose ties to al Qaeda run from where Saad bin Laden is being held on house-arrest in a posh suburban Tehran home to Ayman al-Zawahri, his dad‘s number two. -Ably played in this scene by Robert Wagner.

Our success in Afghanistan enabled us to deal strongly with the Pakistan where Musharef has allied with us while tenuously balancing the radicals in his country. I fear his scales have tipped and we’re about to lose and ally. The new stronger relation with Pakistan enabled us to unravel the black market deals of AQ Kahn who was dealing to Iran, North Korea and Libya. Mommar Khadaffi flipped when we presented him with the evidence. -One less meddling country. More isolation for Iran.

“Offensive strategy #12-#17 When ten to the enemy’s one, surround him. When five times his strength, attack him. If double his strength divide him. If equally matched you may engage him (in these situations only the able general can win.) If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing. And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him. “

Ousting Saddam accomplished three things in our war with Iran. It further divided the Shia/Arab world from Iran’s control (Estimates #25), it helps us surround Iran (Offensive strategy #12) and it helps us achieve “Estimates #24; Keep him under strain and wear him down. “ We have been laying siege to Iran since our towers collapsed. Their economy is in shambles and the peasants are revolting.

Iran is a living contradiction because while they are poised to grow their tyrannical reach tremendously in the next few years, the country is under great peril of collapse. And my fellow Americans, the collapse of the Iranian leadership is what we want. That’s what will bring long-term peace and safety to the region. They are the final main obstacle to lasting peace.

Iran is the primary sponsor of Hamas who is trying to thwart an election in the newly recognized Palestine. Iran is also the primary sponsor of Hezbollah who is disrupting the freely-elected Cedar revolutionaries in Lebanon . And they’ve got a puppet on their hand called Syria. If that is not enough, nearly every IED that kills our boys in Iraq was supplied by Iran and recent intelligence reports indicate that al Sadr has been backed by Iran since the fall of Saddam’s statue. -That’s something on which most of the defense intelligencia and the press have agreed for some time now. They are building their own nukes and trying to buy “loose nukes” from the former Soviet Union, they’ve just let in IAEA inspectors (the first since 2003) and in the year 2001 they revealed that they hid 20 years of nuclear technology advancements from the world. Oh, and one more thing, they are the primary sponsor of al Qaeda now.

Pretty glum estimate of what we’re up against in Iran, eh? What to do? What to do?

Unfortunately despite that we are militarily superior and the fact we’ve got ‘em surrounded, Iran has not surrendered. Even though the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad are as popular as the Green Party here in the states, they have been able to keep their grip on the reigns of power. If ever there were a day that Iran’s people got to vote in a national referendum about the form their government should take, they would throw the bums out! 70% of Iran’s population is very pro-west due to the amount of contact they’ve had with the west through their education and importation of our sophistication.

But why hasn’t Iran held a national referendum on their form of leadership? Because the world is not unified in calling for it. Even the country who is calling for most loudly is divided on whether it is called for at all! The ruling mullahs of Iran aren’t worn down yet. And they know we are being worn down. We are being divided from within. Iran is also utilizing the permanent things taught centuries ago by Sun Tzu and his disciples.

“Offensive strategy #26 There are circumstance in war when many cannot attack the few, and others when the weak can master the strong. One able to manipulate such circumstances will be victorious. “

Iran has certainly done a great job of manipulating a great block of Americans to demand that we withdrawal from the hard-fought positions along Iran’s borders. Iran has manipulated much of America into believing that we should unwittingly turn over to them without a much of fight a region which is on the cusp of incredible democratic advancement.

As Reagan said, “We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening.”

Catch a edited version of the greatest speech of the Twentieth Century, Reagan‘s A Time For Choosing in my links

It would be today’s most poignant speech were it updated with today’s enemies and delivered by someone in power with the testicular fortitude to say it.

Today the ability to conduct this war is tenuous because those who understand that the result of a withdrawal from Iraq means that Iranians will takeover the region are afraid of telling the truth about the threats we face. For fear of being labeled warmongers, the case against Iran is not being made. Meanwhile our boys are marking time in the meat grinder that is Iraq where Iran can command its troops to hide in shadows, conceal their identities and strike us at a time of their choosing. It has been decided in the caucus chambers to kick the can that is Iran down the road to the next President. And I understand why. The war-weary American people won’t elect somebody who explains the dangers in the countdown to crisis with Iran. These are the times that try men’s souls.

What still remains to be seen is at the time of choosing our next President, will our troops still be stationed on Iran’s southern border or will Iran’s troops will be on Iraq’s southern border? Will the next President inherit a hand of strength or weakness for dealing in the high-stakes showdown with Iran? Will any of the candidates have the balls to say what’s not being said about the phantom menace that is Iran?

Thought provoking comments from the Oriental mind, though I prefer Clausewitz. One thing is for sure as you say, Peace through Strength. Your nom de plume of pre WW II vintage did not understand that. Coming back from his chat with Hitler he claimed peace and Czechoslovakia then was absorbed. Behind the scenes General Beck and the German Army were ready to remove Hitler when war came with Czechoslovakia and the allies held firm. England and France did not and Hitler’s success derailed the removal. What a delight it would be to know what is going on behind the scenes in Iran. The point for us is to remain firm and not cave in. The English also did not take into account much what they could have known in more detail in Germany. May we not be so blithely ignorant and cause ongoing and untold sorrow.

Compliments on a very thorough analysis.

Two points: Iran is predominantly Shiite, while most of the rest of the Islamic world and alqaeda is not. The Shia/Arab world already is largely not under Iranian control and the attacks have somewhat unified radical Islamic elements across the Shiite/[non-Shiite] divide (at least against the United States and its allies--outside of Iraq, it seems as though Muslims are ignoring that non-Shiites are killing Shiites and the other way around.

Point two is that personally don't support representative government in the Islamic world, unless tempered by a strong secular force (such as the military in Turkey). After all, the Iranian autocracy under the Shah was brought down by people power. Modern Iran is arguably more democratic than it was under the Shah. Similarly, if Pakistan became 'democratic' tomorrow, they might vote into power an Islamic sharia government, and then the islamofascists could have direct access to nuclear weapons. American-allied dictatorships seem to be the way to go for now.

Very interesting application of "The Art of War."

While I'm not completely versed in its many strategies, isn't there something that says "if smaller or weaker than your enemy, annoy him?"

Couldn't you say that Al Quaeda (being smaller organizationally) is using terrorism to divide and annoy Western alliances? Isn't Al Quaeda using our own divided government and a complicit western media to its own strategy and interests? Aren't they biding their time, waiting for a Democratic administration to withdrawl?

Is this a matter of who is better at applying Sun Tzu?

Sun Tsu's wisdom works well in ordinary life.

It is only a fool that attacks those (verbally, emotionally, or physically) when the opponent is strong and they are weak.

In politics we see his wisdom at work in the "wedge issue" where one emphasizes an issue not because it is on the top of your priority list (though it could be) but because it divides, demoralizes, and destroys your opposition.

I believe that if the Republican Party can remove current leadership (yes, that means you, Mel) and make immigration control its top issue it can demoralize and defeat the Democrats by decoupling them from their key constituents of union members and blacks.

As for the Middle East, my view is that Bush has squandered a great opportunity to liberate that region from its tyrants, madmen, and religious fanatics. He has failed to press the military advantage in a timely manner and allowed the quislings at home to gather their forces and strength.

At this point I don't see any good end-games. It looks like the status quo will continue and we will probably take a beating in the next election here.

Then we can throw out the clowns at the top of the party, seize immigration as the number one issue, and control Congress and the White House for a generation.

(One step backwards, ten steps forward--the Sun Tsu way.)

Ousting Saddam accomplished three things in our war with Iran.

I'm afraid I must disagree with this on several points.

It further divided the Shia/Arab world from Iran’s control (Estimates #25)...

Saddam was Sunni, not Shia. Having Saddam in power actually kept the Iranian Shia in check. The Iraq-Iran war being just one example. By removing Saddam and the Sunni's from power, we have opened the door to Iranian-Shia control in Iraq.

..it helps us surround Iran (Offensive strategy #12)...

One could just as easily argue that it is we who are surrounded, not Iran. Our troops in Afghanistan are bordered on three sides by Iran and Pakistan and on the north by (at best) neutral 'istans'. Our troops in Iraq are surrounded by Iran, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan and Saudi Arabia are not enemies, but they are unreliable allies.

.. and it helps us achieve “Estimates #24; Keep him under strain and wear him down.“

Thanks to the MSM, Americans are weary under the strain of daily negative news. Congress has already been worn down to the point of attempting to pass laws forcing our retreat.

Their economy is in shambles and the peasants are revolting.

I don't think our economy is in shambles, but our peasant democrats are about as revolting as they come!

Another Sun Tzu principle that is too often ignored: “If your opponent is quick to anger, seek to irritate him.”

This is what I always remind those who complain that by bringing the war to Iraq, we are making the terrorists mad and creating more of them. (Actually, we make more terrorists by allowing them to think they can attack us with impunity, as they did throughout the 1990s.

Good analysis, and welcome to FR. It's been years since I read Art of War, and it's something I'd want to relook before commenting on extensively. I've long thought our current military and political leaders trying to manage this war should take a serious look at WT Sherman...not specifically his actions during the war between the states, but moreso, his actions managing the conquest and opening of the west.

His memoirs are well worth a read in light of the current conflict. When we first took over Iraq and completely disbanded the military, I was reminded of the pissing contest Sherman got into with Stanton, as Sherman had wanted to allow confederate troops to retain their weapons and enforce order at least until they completed their return to their home states. Stanton wanted the complete disarmament...

Obviously there are a lot of differences between the two conflicts, but I think there are a surprising number of similarities and lessons to be learned, especially as the nation entered the reconstruction era.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.