Posted on 04/02/2003 10:18:27 AM PST by Enemy Of The State
Sun Tzu: The real father of 'shock and awe'
By Marwaan Macan-Markar
BANGKOK - While the US-led war on Iraq may not yet have succeeded in its stated aim of "liberating" Iraq and destroying its weapons of mass destruction, it may have succeeded in breathing new life into the writings of an ancient Asian mind - the Chinese military philosopher Sun Tzu.
This week served up the latest about the Chinese thinker and general from the 5th century BC, who wrote the oldest military treatise on war, The Art of War; using knowledge he learned from fighting during China's Age of the Warring States.
Sun's work on war has punctuated the debate under way since it emerged that Washington's initial battle plans - given the name "shock and awe" - had not produced the desired results.
A commentary in Monday's Asahi Shimbun, a daily newspaper in Japan, is typical of those that acknowledge there is a Chinese link in Washington's armor.
"The 'shock and awe' operation, a massive barrage of bombardment launched at the beginning of the war on Iraq, is said to have been derived from Sun Tzu's military strategy," states the commentary, titled "The misapplication of Sun Tzu's strategy".
"This strategy is meant to achieve submission by causing the enemy psychological shock and awe before battle is even joined," it adds. But despite the "massive barrage of bombardments", the US plan "seems to have fallen far short of a successful application of what Sun Tzu recommended as the best war strategy".
The stiff resistance mounted by Iraqi soldiers in the key towns along the road to Baghdad reflects this reality. Furthermore, the US forces have suffered early casualties, with more than 30 deaths and seven prisoners of war, according to media reports.
Yet Sun enthusiasts disagree. They argue that the obstacles US-led troops have run into - from the failure of forcing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's regime to collapse after a steady barrage of missiles and bombs, to the stiff resistance mounted by Iraqi troops - do not mean that Sun's strategy has failed.
"Much has yet to be seen before making any conclusions," writes an analyst for Sonshi.com, a website dedicated to Sun's The Art of War.
"Based on what we have seen, and despite criticism so far, [US military planners] are applying Sun Tzu's principles surprisingly well, adds the analyst, who did not want to be identified. "There is little doubt the Iraqi forces are overwhelmed at this point. It is just a matter of time before things start to collapse."
That is also the hope of the man who conceived the term "shock and awe" - Harlan Ullman, a US military expert. In 1996, Ullman co-authored a book, Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance, for which Sun had been an intellectual source.
Since late January, the "shock and awe" theory has been gaining currency in the US media in relation to the war on Iraq. Ullman was quoted as saying that the level of force through air strikes would be devastating as to destroy the Iraqi military's psychological will to fight.
According to available reports, the "shock and awe" campaign demanded that by the end of the first two days, close to 800 Tomahawk cruise missiles would have hit the Iraqi capital, Baghdad.
A ground war was to be avoided by using this tactic.
On Saturday, Ullman told Canada's National Post newspaper that the previously untested "shock and awe" military strategy was "being inaugurated in Iraq in its most extreme form, at a level of intimidation on par with the 1945 nuclear attack on Japan" - also carried out by the United States.
An account of the "shock and awe" strategy on the US Department of Defense website amplifies how much it has been influenced by Sun's thinking. "Sun was well aware of the crucial importance of achieving 'shock and awe' prior to, during, and in ending battle," it states.
In fact, words used by US military officials to describe the nature of the massive aerial attack on Iraq in the first days - such as "decapitation" - can be traced to their attempt to use Sun's strategy. He called for "instant decapitation of military or societal target to achieve shock and awe", the Defense Department document states.
It draws upon one story to describe how Sun applied such force to achieve his end. In this case, the victims were two concubines in the court of Ho Lu, the king of Wu. They were beheaded to stamp out any resistance and to achieve conformity from the remaining concubines.
"The objectives of this example are to achieve shock and awe and hence compliance through very selective, utterly brutal and ruthless, and rapid application of force to intimidate," the document adds. "Decapitation is merely one instrument."
The analyst at Sonshi.com sees other elements of Sun's The Art of War in the current US-led push into Iraq. Sun's concept of "shock and awe" can be found in Washington's effort to triumph over the Iraqi regime with minimal confrontation.
But then again, Sun Tzu's military advice has been invoked in many battles before, from thousands of years ago.
China's first emperor, the samurai generals who united Japan, and Mao Zedong also used Sun Tzu's strategies. The US military also invoked some of his principles in the 1991 Gulf War, and more recently, books and theories have been written about how Sun Tzu's thinking can be used by the United States in its "war on terrorism" after September 11, 2001.
"I am not surprised that Sun Tzu's works have influenced the thinking in the US," says Robert Karniol, Asia-Pacific editor of Jane's Defense Weekly. "It is quite common."
“Strength to weakness”
“All warfare is based on deception”
“The quality of decision is like the well-timed swoop of a falcon which enables it to strike and destroy it victim”
“Rapidity is the essence of war; take advantage of the enemy’s unreadiness, make your way by unexpected routes, and attack unguarded spots”
Those who are victorious plan effectively and change decisively. They are like a great river that maintains its course but adjusts its flow…they have form but are formless. They are skilled in both planning and adapting and need not fear the result of a thousand battles; for they win in advance, defeating those that have already lost.
Perhaps...but a true disciple of the teachings of Sun Tzu would feign ignorance of Tzu's teachings, no?
;)
-Jay
What an odd statement. The mere presence of an enemy who resists in battle is a misapplication of Sun Tzu's recommmendations?? The existence of incredibly light casualties and captured soldiers suggests that the strategy is unsound??
While it is true that Sun Tzu noted the truism that the best battle is the one that is never fought, it hardly follows that the existence of battle points to failures of battlefield strategy. Diplomacy (the path to non-military victory) surely failed, but that is laid at the feet of Saddam (who knows only HIS will) and the UN (who know only appeasement, delay, obstruction, and incompetence). Militarily, this fight is one of the most spectacular successes in history, and better aligned with Sun Tzu's principles than virtually any other major modern operation: few -if any- unnecessary casualties, utilizing fear to make huge numbers of the enemy surrender or refuse to fight, utilizing "propaganda" to win over the locals, taking massive amounts of real estate with minimal violence, use of speed to counter a slow enemy, use of intelligence and "spies" -cooperating Iraqis- to make the best decisions, denying the enemy any decent information of information-gathering abilities, etc.
Apparently, journalists world-wide willfully ignore the substance of their topics... I figured it was an American phenomenon.
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.