Tha Tao of War?

I've got more questions than answers. That's not a bad thing. As the African proverb says: to ask well is to know much.

My interdisciplinary research into military history and social ethics has led me to one of the many books I just finished reading, "The Tao of War," an ancient Chinese military classic in the tradition of Sun Tzu's "Art of War."

"The Tao of War" was penned by a 9th century military commander named Wang Chen and is studied by all serious military leaders and scholars the world over; not to mention a handful of inquisitive amateurs like myself.

"Wresting military victory is not hard, but preserving it is," Chen cautions. If Chen is right, why does it seem so many U.S. news consumers see the tearing down of Saddam's statue on cable TV as a signal to engage in I-told-you-so rhetoric?

Those who are opposed to the president's preventive war doctrine never questioned the might of U.S. armed forces or said that U.S. fighters would lose the battle for Baghdad. And no one that I know of is shedding tears of sympathy for Saddam.

As Chen wrote: "A monarch incapable of knowing the truly constant Tao -- who indulges his tastes, and desires, wantonly initiates inauspicious activities, mobilizes the shields and halberds, and circulates his poisonous venoms -- will certainly be repaid with calamity and disaster."

However, all ethical systems are based on this fundamental principle: Moral agents are responsible for the predictable consequences of their actions, regardless of the behavior of others. So it is there that we must begin.

Opposition to the invasion of Iraq was (and is) based on what opponents regard as a violation of the rule of international law and a breach of a higher spiritual law. These sentiments are not without valid reason, as evidenced by what the pope and the Dalai Lama have been exhorting since long before March 19.

Cheers of U.S. victory ought to be tempered by looking at the situation our Israeli brothers and sisters are in. They've won several wars against Arab regimes and still, decades later, Israel has neither peace nor security.

Laying aside polemics about the true motive behind the decision to invade Iraq, practical reality must be confronted. And sooner rather than later, we are going to have to answer the question: What about the rule of law?

If the rule of law is our guide, it should be acknowledged that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a violation of the U.N. Charter, as pointed out in a letter Veterans for Peace wrote to CENTCOM just prior to the invasion.

The Bush doctrine of preventive war is illegal under international law in its very conception. Pre-emptive strikes are nothing new. Preventive war is a different matter.

Two counter arguments come immediately to mind: 1) We were truly under "imminent" threat and to hell with international law, even though Iraq's violation of international law was the official justification for the invasion.

(Note: No weapons of mass destruction have been found to date, and after two wars against Iraq, Saddam didn't use what the Bush administration has insisted he would employ.)

Or 2), you could argue that international law is of supreme importance, particularly since the U.S. Constitution says that any international treaty we enter into (i.e. U.N. Charter) is considered to be on the same legal footing as the Constitution itself.

Of course, this doesn't solve the "threat" problem. So let's suppose you support international law but you also think a preventive war is a good idea. Shouldn't we lead by example, especially since we talk the loudest about the rule of law, and change international law so that it reflects the "new reality" where international police actions are necessary and so forth?

Back to "The Tao of War." In it, Chen lays out how those of "superior virtue" in military leadership ought to conduct themselves: "Weapons are inauspicious implements, not the instruments of the perfected man ... victories achieved are not glorified, for glorifying them is to take pleasure in killing men. ... After killing masses of the enemy's men, weep for them with grief and sorrow. After victorious in battle, implement the rites of mourning."

On in the heat of battle did we glorify weapons.We mourn the deaths of innocents and treat the enemy wounded as our own.We mourn the deaths of our brave servicemen and pray for the wounded to heal.

YES, they did! Vietnam all over again! He doesn't have WMD but will use them against our troops! Millions of Iraqis will die! The bullsh$% dragged on and on!

France, Germany, Japan and South Korea seemed to have survived a war of liberation! These clowns need to be put in a cirus.

Translation: I liked it because it said "Tao" in the title, and if you haven't read it, you're not "serious".

"If the rule of law is our guide, it should be acknowledged that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a violation of the U.N. Charter, as pointed out in a letter Veterans for Peace wrote to CENTCOM just prior to the invasion."

How about Iraq's violations of the agreements it signed in 1991? I would argue that Iraq's attempt to assassinate President Bush in 1993 was in itself a casus belli.

As for the "preventive war" issue, I would argue that Operation Iraqi Freedom is merely an exercise in "assertive disarmament."

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.