Chris Dodd-D Displays a Grand Ignorance of Warfare

In fairness, I'd like to point out that both parties display a massive ignorance of the strategies and tactics of warfare. In this video, Chris Dodd claims that you cannot move 140,000 troops in a month. His quote, "You are not going to do it in a week or a month, 140,000 troops..." appears around 1 minute, 45 seconds in the video. This is complete hogwash.

On June 6, 1944, now known as D-Day, the Allied forces moved 140,000 troops across the English channel in a single day. About a month later, they had moved over 1,000,000 troops. They did this under the constant fire of the German army. With Iraqi conditions, General Dwight Eisenhower could have easily moved the entire US Army out in a week without loosing any sleep over the security of his plan.

Right this very moment, there is a retreat plan sitting in the file cabinet of some General in Iraq that could get all of the troops out in a week. To not have a plan for retreat would be a complete dereliction of duty so we can know for certainty that this plan exists. We do not need to know the details of this plan, as it would compromise security, but I do feel that the General in charge should inform the media of this plan as Politicians should not be able to lie about the good name of the Army.

I can think of no greater slander against the US forces than to claim that they could not move out 140,000 troops in a month. The hilarious part of this Dodd's assertion is that we moved IN 140,000 troops in less than a month, fighting the Iraqi Army the entire way. That we not cannot walk right out with the same speed is both a lie and a slander of what remains of the US's good name.

Often on the internet, you find various vociferous and vitriolic critisims of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfield policy towards their desperate and duplicitous wars. While many of these make very valid points, they all fall victim to a single rebuttal. We can sucintly describe the rebuttal as follows, "What the hell do you know? You are a receptionist at a dental office!"

So I thought I would write an article but I’d use someone else’s arguments. Perhaps someone with titles like "God of War", "Master of Strategy", and "Undisputed Greatest General in Human History who’s Book is Nearly as Well Printed as the Bible!" A guy like that would bring some real credibility to the argument, you know? I’ll stop belaboring the point. Sun Tzu and his Art of War stand peerless in the domain of strategy.

If the Chinese cultural inertia didn’t value the past so highly and instead ran forward with his ideas, they would have perhaps found game theory, probability theory, baysean reasoning amongst other inventions 2000 years before their time. We would all speak Chinese today, unquestionably. Indeed the Chinese were so blinded by his brilliance that the aformentioned ideas have western names. Rome + Sun Tzu + Oil = American Empire may be the historical lesion of the Twentith Century.

To almost any casual observer, America has lost the Sun Tzu part of the equation in the 21st century. And from this observation, we get the critiques that fall to the above ad hominem. To counteract this, I thought it may help to strengthen the argument by an appeal to an authority who’s war logic has stood unquestioned and unmatched for thousands of years. Of course, I jest. It is his logic that I appeal to as well as yours.

This article will present quotes from Sun Tzu and will juxtapose them against the actions of the US administration to prove that they have marched America down the path to failure. I implore you to read the Art of War and come to full understanding of these arguments. They serve as THE most important weapon in proving the failure of the Bush policy.

Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

The title given to this chapter is "Offensive Strategies" or "Attack by Stratagem." The opening quote shows quite well that the American strategy of attack was doomed to failure from the beginning. The basic strategy of the US was "Destroy all infrastructure and shatter the Iraqi army. Remove Saddam as the head of the government. Replace with Democracy. Shake, do not stir." Sun Tzu clearly shows us that the high level strategy of the Bush administration does not meet the standards of supreme excellence. That which is without supreme excellence will soon fail. By ruining Iraq and Afganistan, the Bush administration has sown the seeds of its own failure.

Sun Tzu said: Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

We again see that the Bush administration’s plans fall into what Sun Tzu considered the WORST POLICY of warfare. The Bush administration STARTED at the second worst strategy and then they DESCENDED into using the worst strategy, namely attacking and routing cities.

Sun Tzu said: Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.

The Bush administration has failed on the first point. They have failed on the second point. They have failed on the third point. In no way does the Bush form of warfare count as skillful by the standards of Sun Tzu. Unskillful warriors may win some victories. Anyone who has played a player vs player fighting game knows that a button masher can get some victories. Especially if they are playing Eddie, the overpowered Tekken character that still fervors the dreams of button mashers everywhere. The Bush administration can go a LONG way with button mashing, but eventually those without skill get defeated by those with skill.

Sun Tzu: There are three ways in which the ruler can wreak havoc upon his own army. Firstly, by not having a good grasp at the prevailing circumstances, he orders an attack or retreat when the real situation demands otherwise. This action cripples the army.

Again. Given that the current administration considers any tactical or strategic retreat as "cut and run", they only have one option in the war, endless attack. Sun Tzu rightly points out that this cripples the army. If you can only perform one action, you can never nimbly outfox your opponents. Your opponents know what’s coming, you have no tricks!

I feel it important to note that the Bush administration has committed an error here which Sun Tzu considers will "wreak havoc" on the army. He contends that our army has been "crippled" by these actions. As time goes on, this become more and more difficult to hide, but the course of events that we see unfolding come DIRECTLY from these failures.

Moreover, since the argument for war was the WMD fraud, we can say that the Bush administration couldn’t possibly know when or where to properly attack, as their policy was based on lies.

Sun Tzu: Secondly, by being ignorant of the complexity of military internal affairs, he recklessly interferes with the administration. This causes confusion within the rank and file.

We have heard countless complaints from the generals that the Rumsfield has interfered with the military’s planning. To a military novice, you may not really grasp the incredible importance of these news reports. Those people hear, "Rumsfield didn’t plan the war correctly." Those with knowledge of military affairs think, "The politicians and policy makers are planning the WAR?!?!" Rumsfield may have spent a lot of time around the pentagon, but he is no soldier. Neither is Bush, nor Cheney. They in fact should have NOTHING to do with planning war. Wars should be planned by generals and generals alone.

By interfering with the operation of the military, the Bush administration has found a second way to "wreak havoc" upon the US forces.

Sun Tzu: Thirdly, by not knowing the importance of military expediency, he intervenes in the assignment of military forces. This will beget uncertainty and distrust.

Again, Rumsfield and the Bush team have assumed direct control over a wide variety of military affairs and we don’t even question WHY we allow them to assign where and what our troops are doing. We see this very clearly in the movement away from the Bush administrations positions from former and even current troops. Can anyone truly believe that this attitude will not "wreak havoc" upon the US?

Sun Tzu: Once your own army is confused, invasion from neighbouring states becomes dangerously imminent. This is the classic case of sowing discord among your own army and giving away the advantage to your enemy.

Sun Tzu could not have any clearer position on the outcome of the Bush policy. Think about this, He lived 2500 years ago and this mistake had been committed so many times that he felt it was one of the CLASSIC ways of loosing in war. We see more and more states rise up against the US as the Bush administration weakens US strength. Tellingly, I’ve also seen the last line translated as "This is simply bringing anarchy into the army, and flinging victory away."

Sun Tzu: Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory: (1) He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight. (2) He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces. (3) He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks. (4) He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared. (5) He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

Firstly we note that these five things are ESSENTIAL for victory. You cannot have victory if you lack any ONE of these things. I will show how the Bush Administration does not meet ANY of theses qualifications.

1. Bush claimed that he had to go to war because of Iraqi WMD’s. All of the weapons inspectors, who were in a position to know, disagreed. The US may have had to go to war for other reasons, but as the fight was pitched it shows that the Bush administration does not know when to fight. He engages in optional wars and that means the Bush administration misses on of the ESSENTIAL properties of victory.
2. We knew how to handle the superior forces of Saddam and for that reason we find that part of the war went swimmingly well. We however categorically did NOT know how to fight the "inferior forces" of gurella warfare. Again, we failed to achieve another one of the ESSENTIAL factors of victory.
3. We have seen reports that because of the vauge and misleading reasons given for the Iraqi invasion, we have troops questioning the war. We have generals and advisors critical of the plan for the very reasons Sun Tzu would feel critical of the Bush plan. The critisim has a very valid justification. And because that fact has validity that inflicts a mortal wound upon the Bush administration plan by causing dissention in the ranks.
4. The US itself did prepare very well. We had 50 years of cold war prepairation just itching to get some use. We nearly find an ESSENTIAL element that the Bush administration actually almost accomplished, or could at least take some small claim for. However the Bush administration failed the latter part of the condition, as they trumpeted how they were going to "punk" Saddam. Saddam’s troops then hid large caches of the weapons and Saddam’s Army put up a nominal resistance until the dispersing of his troops into the terrorist underground. The US forces then easily won, and promptly dispursed the remainder of the Iraqi army into the terrorist underground. Sun Tzu describes this Bush administration mistake as well.

   Sun Tzu says: The captives should be treated kindly and absorbed into the ranks. This is the way of winning the battle and expanding your force at the same time.

   As the aftermath has shown, the Bush administration was not prepared, they only though they were. They prepared for the wrong thing.

5. And here we see the final ESSENTIAL failure of the Bush administration. Their interference with everything has put the US forces in jeapordy. Has anyone else noticed that things started to go downhill in Iraq right about the time that Bush showed up on that aircraft carrier? The postwar phase is repleat with examples of interference.

With this final failure, we find that the Bush administration’s plans meet none of the requirements for victory.

Sun Tzu: 18. Hence the saying: 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.

The Bush administration has failed to understand the enemy it faced. From this, we can see that Sun Tzu would feel that the initial victory over Saddam would be replaced by a defeat at the hands of revolt.

Sun Tzu said: In waging a war one must always attempt to score a swift victory. Protracted battles will frustrate the soldiers and diminish their morale. Besieging a fortified city will sap an army’s strength to exhaustion. Sending an army on a long expedition will bankrupt the country. Exhausted and demoralised troops coupled with depleted national resources presents an opportunity for neighbouring feudal warlords to attack you as you are now most vulnerable. Even if you have the most able commander, he will not be able to avert the disastrous consequences under such circumstances.

I find myself taken again by the surprise of finding "There’s nothing new under the sun!" The laws of war have not changed since Sun Tzu marched on field, only the weapons have. The Iraqi war is not swift. It has a grueling protracted daily battle. It besieges cities. It is on a long of a mission as possible. Sun Tzu sums it up, the Bush administration cannot avert "disasterous consequences."

The Bush administration tried to sell this Iraqi adventure as "The Long War." Sun Tzu would have laughed himself to death if he heard that expression! It does not exits, this "Long War." Sun Tzu clearly points out in the following quotes that "The Long War’s" true name is "The Long Self-Destruction."

Sun Tzu: Thus, I have learnt that although an incompetent commander will try to score a quick victory, I am yet to witness a clever commander who deliberately prolongs a war. To engage in an interminable war and simultaneously bring benefit to the nation is not possible. Therefore, if one does not anticipate all the pitfalls of war, in particular the problems of protracted conflict, then one would not appreciate the benefits of military expediency and a swift victory.

Sun Tzu: 5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. 6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. 7. It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.

Sun Tzu: Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted. No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare. ? Therefore, if one is not fully cognizant of the dangers inherent in doing battle, one cannot fully know the benefits of doing battle.

The previous three translations leave little room for doubt in how Sun Tzu felt about any "Long War." A "Long War" does not exist and cannot exist. The longer the Bush administration continues along its current path, the more "havoc" the US forces will see. And it is important to point out that this does not come from a vested political interest but the cold logic of warfare itself, as embodied in a distant voice from our past.

By failing to recognize the cold realities of war, by engaging in fantasy, and by not listening to any critisims, the Bush administration CANNOT attain victory from this or any other war. The Bush administration’s mentality has no compatibility with a mentality for victory. THEY HAVE CHOSEN THE PATH OF LOSERS!

Sun Tzu: 19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns. 20. Thus it may be known that the leader of armies is the arbiter of the people's fate, the man on whom it depends whether the nation shall be in peace or in peril.

Sun Tzu has shown us that our leaders cannot achieve any lasting victory with their mentality. In this quote, he speaks directly to us. He says that because the decisions of these people cause either victory or defeat, that they then are the arbiter of our fate. He cautions by letting us know that we are in peril as long as the Bush administration control the war.

Sun Tzu said: The ability to foresee victory as proficiently as an ordinary militarist’s does not represent the pinnacle of excellence. Nor does receiving universal acclaim for winning a war present the ultimate achievement. It is as much to say that to lift a single hair is no sign of great strength, to be able to see the sun or the moon is no test of eagle eyesight, or to hear thunder is no mark of keen hearing. The able commander of antiquity won the war with ease. As a consequence the able commander’s victory was so unremarkable; and he was not renowned for his wisdom or his courage. His victory was unerringly assured. This means that the measured he had taken would definitely result in victory because he prevailed over an enemy that has already lost. Hence the commander first creates and maintains his own invincibility. He will not miss any opportunity to defeat the vulnerable enemy. Therefore, the victor creates the conditions for victory before he enters the fray; the vanquished fights first and then tries to work out how to win the battle. The able commander follows the way of the Dao to boost army morale and uphold the rules and regulations. This is why he is able to decisively determine the outcome of war.

By understanding the rules of war, a commander can determine victory or defeat even before the battle begins. However Sun Tzu says there exists a class of people called "the vanquished." These people fight first then try to determine how to win. Sun Tzu clearly shows us that the Bush administration belongs to "the vanquished." We follow them only to our ruin.

Sun Tzu: Therefore, the adept warrior who is capable of initiating the enemy will either create a deception to precipitate his enemy into unnecessary action or offer a gambit, which his enemy simply cannot refuse. In short, he provides the enemy with some apparent advantage to lure him into a deadly trap: an ambush by his overwhelming force.

The Bush administration took the bait of attacking a weak Iraq only to find itself fighting a growing insurgency. The deal looked so good to the Bush administration, that they forgot the basic strategies for victory and hence brought about the ruin of US forces. If the Bush administration had adeptness in warfare, they would have recognized this as many of the generals that disagreed with their plans did.

Sun Tzu: Utilising strategic potential in the deployment of troops is akin to setting logs and boulders rolling. The tendency of the logs and boulders is to remain still on level ground but to keep rolling down a slope. Square objects quickly come to a halt but round ones will continue to roll. In the case of the victor, the momentum unleashed from capitalising on strategic potential coupled with the skilful deployment of troops is like setting huge round boulders tolling down a mountainous slops of great height. The force generated by such momentum is truly awesome.

If we have understood anything about Sun Tzu’s view on the Bush administration’s plans it is that he feels they have very, very low strategic potential. Hence the momentum he speaks of here is the momentum of the enemies of the Bush administration. Iraq will and must spiral out of control as long as the Bush administration remains. Like a law of nature, it crushes US troops and imparales the entire world.

Sun Tzu: Therefore, when confronted by a general skilled at offensive manoeuvres, his enemy does not know how to mount an effective defence; when faced by a commander proficient in defence, his enemy does not know where to attack. The art is so subtle and obscure, it leaves no trace; it is so mysterious and incomprehensible, it conceals all portents. This is why the adept commander becomes the arbiter of his enemy’s fate. His advance cannot he stopped because he directs his attack at the most vulnerable area. He cannot be pursued because he bolts so rapidly that his retreat becomes unreachable. Therefore, if I want to engage the enemy, even if he is safely housed in the strongest fortress surrounded by the deepest moat, he must come out and fight me. I go for the strategic spot where he must come to wrestle. If I decide not to fight, even though I only draw a line on the ground, the enemy will not cross it. I have created enough mayhem to stop him from proceeding.

We find here that the enemies of the Bush administration do clearly understand Sun Tzu’s point. The previous description could have come out of any Iraqi newspaper about insurgency tactics. This should frighten anyone remotely knowledgable about military affairs. It seems obvious that the generals that have come out against the Bush administration know this, as well as the insurgency. Remember this well, generals would not rag on a "war" president unless they felt critical and lasting mistakes were being made. Sun Tzu helps us understand why the generals feel this way.

Sun Tzu: Therefore, if I can force my enemy to adopt a certain formation while I remain uncommitted, I will have an obvious advantage: my force is totally consolidated while his will be dispersed. My force remains an integral whole while his forces are splintered into tenths. By attacking with a force ten times more than the enemy’s, I will enjoy an overwhelming superiority in number. The end result is that I will face a much smaller enemy force, in comparison, in any conflict. Where I choose to fight the battle is unbeknownst to the enemy; thus he will have to make numerous contingency plans. By making more plans and preparations, he will have fewer troops available to engage me in any single conflict.

We see newspaper article with quotes like "stretched thin" but unless we truly understand the art of war, we cannot know how critical these sorts of dangers are. The troops have to go out of their bases, and they cannot do so as battalions due to the security nature of their mission. We have seen that the insurgents make very good use of the laws of war to achive goals that would be impossible if the Bush administration had any clue as to what the laws of war are. Fantasy is a poor strategy for warfare. We forget this historical lesson at our peril.

Sun Tzu: The nature of an effective military tactics is like the flow of water. Water runs away from the higher ground and gravitates to the lower; the essence of sound military tactics is to avoid the invincible and attack the vulnerable. Water follows the contour to chart its course while consummate military tacticians capitalise upon the enemy’s mistakes and weaknesses to achieve victory. As such, sound military tactics has no fixed array or disposition, just like water, which his constantly changing its shape. The ability to respond continually to changing enemy’s tactics and achieve a final victory is truly marvellous. Nothing is constant or absolute: as with the five elements, no single element can claim supremacy over the rest. As with the four seasons, each comes and goes in turn. Some days are long and some are short; similarly, the moon waxes and wanes in a cyclic fashion.dfdf

The Bush administration only deals in absolutes. Their war policies come fixed from on high and never change. If the Bush administration continues to control the course of the war, the insurgents will only achieve greater and greater victories. This fact does not come out of any sort of misguided politics but the laws of war itself.

Sun Tzu: 21. The natural formation of the country is the soldier's best ally; but a power of estimating the adversary, of controlling the forces of victory, and of shrewdly calculating difficulties, dangers and distances, constitutes the test of a great general. 22. He who knows these things, and in fighting puts his knowledge into practice, will win his battles. He who knows them not, nor practices them, will surely be defeated.

Sun Tzu’s words have shown that the Bush administration fails his test of generalship. The Bush administration cannot win. It cannot win for the same reason that you cannot jump to the moon. Jumping to the moon isn’t physically possible for humans nor is fighting "Long Wars" with none of the essential conditions for victory. The Bush administration’s defeat comes not from outside, but from within.

Sun Tzu lays out the consequences very succinctly and shows us that the great generals have a human side.

Sun Tzu: 21. But a kingdom that has once been destroyed can never come again into being; nor can the dead ever be brought back to life. 22. Hence the enlightened ruler is heedful, and the good general full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.

But no one ever accused anyone in the Bush administration of "enlightenment" or "heedfulness."

If you retain this information, you will have the ability to show why the Bush administration policy towards war cannot succeed. By retaining this information, you can overcome any objection when you present your case that the Bush policy makes the US much less safe. You can prove that they in possess none of the essential elements for victory. You can prove that the Bush administration’s interference in the Army’s business costs American lives. You can prove that the Bush administration’s plan can ONLY bring about more harm. You can prove that every single day that Bush remains in power, the prospects for this world grow dimmer and dimmer.

I feel it important to note that you cannot construe this argument as "cut-and-run". Know well this one thing, the US administration has ALREADY LOST the war in Iraq. They have lost it due to their lack of knowledge about warfare. The only question we can ask is, "Do we want any of our troops there to return alive?" If you say, "Yes, we want them back alive," then you must agree to help them return from their defeat. It is not their fault that they were defeated, because an army is only as good as its leaders.

Will you prove these things? Will you wake those around you to this madness? Each day passed diminishes this world as these Bush administration failures cost lives. Will enough people wake up so that the Democratic Empire of the Americas can return to the Constitutional Republic of the United States of America, where there is freedom and justice for ALL. No nation in history has ever pulled back from the brink of its self-inflicted nightmare. But I believe that the people in the US are a very special people.

The people of the US will be the first people in history to realize they are not special and the rules of history and warfare do apply to themselves. We will be the first nation in history to pull back from the abyss and right the wrongs we have committed. We will educate the world, uplifiting all societies. We will respect all other cultures and teach tolerance and understanding.

We will do these things out of enlightented self-interest. Because if we do not do these things, we will not survive the consequences of the Bush administration’s policy.