Karl Rove:
My first instinct is to say, “You better believe it! We’re in a war of ideas. You cannot win a war of ideas without understanding.” But Rove’s folly is much deeper than that. It’s not just because we’re in a war of ideas. Without understanding, nothing is possible.
Here’s what Sun Tzu says in perhaps the most famous passage from The Art of War:
Pretty clear, isn’t it? Sun Tzu a liberal? Actually, yes, he was… [more on the flip]
…And odds are he would have voted for John Kerry. He certainly wouldn’t trust a chicken hawk. How else can you explain this:
There’s that whole “understanding” thing again. Such a wuss! And it gets worse! For example, he also said:
The ultimate example of this, of course, is soft power: being so admired, respected, even-dare I even say it?-beloved, that no one has the will to fight you. The ultimate way to defeat an enemy-make him your friend.
Of course, Sun Tzu realized that was the ideal. Most of the time-in his world at least-you had to settle for much less. But the ideal still set a standard, and indicated a direction that was reflected in many ways throughout his writing. Again and again we encounter admonitions that Bush/Rove have consistently ignored. And often the admonitions are clearly related to the need for understanding-of oneself, of the enemy, of strategy, unity and purpose.
Consider this passage:
(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.
That’s 0-for-5, Karl. Not looking too good.
It wasn’t just liberals. In August, 2002, Brent Scowcrowft and General Anthony Zinni both warned you not to invade Iraq. They knew it was not the time to fight in Iraq. In a speech on August 23, Zinni said:
It might be interesting to wonder why all the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in anger and really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way. That’s usually the way it is in history. (Crowd laughter.)
But let me tell you what the problem is now as I see it. You need to weigh this: what are your priorities in the region? That’s the first issue in my mind.
The Middle East peace process, in my mind, has to be a higher priority. Winning the war on terrorism has to be a higher priority. More directly, the situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Central Asia need to be resolved, making sure Al Qaeda can’t rise again from the ashes that are destroyed. Taliban cannot come back. That the warlords can’t regain power over Kabul and Karzai, and destroy everything that has happened so far.
Our relationships in the region are in major disrepair, not to the point where we can’t fix them, but we need to quit making enemies we don’t need to make enemies out of. And we need to fix those relationships. There’s a deep chasm growing between that part of the world and our part of the world. And it’s strange, about a month after 9/11, they were sympathetic and compassionate toward us. How did it happen over the last year? And we need to look at that — that is a higher priority.
The country that started this, Iran, is about to turn around, 180 degrees. We ought to be focused on that. The father of extremism, the home of the ayatollah — the young people are ready to throw out the mullahs and turn around, become a secular society and throw off these ideas of extremism. That is more important and critical. They’re the ones that funded Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. That ought to be a focus. And I can give you many, many more before you get down to Saddam and Iraq.
So much for “when to fight.”
Obviously you don’t know how to handle inferior forces. That’s why you’re no match for bin Laden. Or the Iraqi insurgency.
The same spirit? Lyndie England and Donald Rumsfeld? Well, maybe those two. But those two and who else?
“Prepared himself”?
Maybe Cheney should have read this one before he started meddling with the intelligence.
* * * * * * * *
I know that Haliburton would disagree, but Sun Tzu would give thumbs down to what we’re doing in Iraq. How do I know? Well there’s this:
And there’s this:
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, 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.
And, finally, this:
I could go on, and on, and on, Karl, baby. But I think I’ve made my point: Sun Tzu wrote the book on The Art of War, and he differs with you every step of the way. The very understanding that you mock, despise and try to make into a mark of dishonor, that is what he held as key.
But mocking understanding is only the beginning of your folly. Now it is time for understanding to bring your folly to an end.
response to a comment of mine at DKos was the inspiration for this diary.
There is no art in war; there is only bloodshed.
Sun Tsu is a bad metaphor for a progressive to choose.
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 Tsu, The Art of War
Is anyone really reading what this man is saying?
1. In the operations of war, where there are in the field a thousand swift chariots as many heavy chariots, and a hundred thousand mail-clad soldiers, with provisions enough to carry them a thousand li, the expenditure at home and at the front, including entertainment of guests, small items such as glue and paint, and sums spent on chariots and armor, will reach the total of a thousand ounces of silver per day. Such is the cost of raising an army of 100,000 men.
Waging War – 1
2. When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men’s weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength. 3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.
Waging War – 2
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, 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.
Waging War – 3
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.
Waging War – 4
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
Waging War – 5
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.
Waging War – 6
8. The skillful soldier does not raise a second levy, neither are his supply-wagons loaded more than twice.
Waging War – 7
9. Bring war material with you from home, but forage on the enemy. Thus the army will have food enough for its needs.
Waging War – 8
10. Poverty of the State exchequer causes an army to be maintained by contributions from a distance. Contributing to maintain an army at a distance causes the people to be impoverished.
Waging War – 9
11. On the other hand, the proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause the people’s substance to be drained away.
Waging War – 10
12. When their substance is drained away, the peasantry will be afflicted by heavy exactions. 13. 14. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and three-tenths of their income will be dissipated; while government expenses for broken chariots, worn-out horses, breast-plates and helmets, bows and arrows, spears and shields, protective mantles, draught-oxen and heavy wagons, will amount to four-tenths of its total revenue.
Waging War – 11
15. Hence a wise general makes a point of foraging on the enemy. One cartload of the enemy’s provisions is equivalent to twenty of one’s own, and likewise a single picul of his provender is equivalent to twenty from one’s own store. 16. Now in order to kill the enemy, our men must be roused to anger; that there may be advantage from defeating the enemy, they must have their rewards.
Waging War – 12
17. Therefore in chariot fighting, when ten or more chariots have been taken, those should be rewarded who took the first. Our own flags should be substituted for those of the enemy, and the chariots mingled and used in conjunction with ours. The captured soldiers should be kindly treated and kept. 18. This is called, using the conquered foe to augment one’s own strength. 19. In war, then, let your great object be victory, not lengthy campaigns.
Waging War – 13
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 Tsu – The Art of War, II. Waging War
Our goal for humanity should be to renounce violence. We must resist the urge to look back in admiration on those whose legacy is War, Famine, Pestilence, and Death.
Sun Tzu wrote in the midst of a violent time, when avoiding war was not an option. Yet, despite this, he is clearly concerned with what liberals and others today know as “harm reduction.” If you look at the core principles he is articulating, and ask how they apply in today’s world, they provide a sound pragmatic foundation for opposing war that is not based on pacifist principles.
And since we want to win over people who don’t already agree with us, why in world would we want to ignore the value of using his arguments–and his authority?
Sun Tzu wrote in the midst of a violent time, when avoiding war was not an option.
everyone who makes war says that avoiding war is not an option. “we live in violent (dangerous, desperate, fill in the blank) times” is the justification for every war.
by the way, it’s not even clear that sun tsu ever lived at all. Sun Tsu
i get your point that a recognized historical manual on warfare would suggest that this administration’s wars were wrongheaded.
but bayprarie has a point too. the art of war has the same goals as the bush administration. it’s about conquest. attacking. invading. the art of war may be a manual about better, more efficient, more profitable warmongering, but its not about restricting war to self defense. and its only references to morality are in regards to whether you can get your own people to follow you to their deaths. and bayprairie is right, there is no art in war, there is only bloodshed.
so if your post is an attempt to convince others who may be, or have been, pro war, into seeing the error of the bush administration ways, yes one way to do it is to show them that a recognized war manual would advise against the bush wars. another way is to do what bayprarie does, and show people the bloody reality, the human toll, of war. and encourage people to think about when, if ever, such a price is worth paying.
Of course everyone says their time is different. But just because many people lie does not mean it never was true. The point is, however, that our time very clearly is not such a time. This is a time when there’s an opening for peace the likes of which the human race has not seen in something close to 8-10,000 years. And the question is, “Are we more in love with our moral purity, or are we more interested in results?”
My sister practiced Aikido for many years. The teaching was very clear–that the point was not to defeat enemies, not to “use their energy against them” as is sometimes said of other martial arts (Aikido is a modern–though pre-marketing era–synthesis).
Rather the point was blend with their energy, to harmonize with them, so that enmity disappeared. The most impressive form of demonstration was a master simply avoiding anyone laying a hand on him. And the greatest tale of heroism was about a master eating in gangster hangout, treating the men who came to kill him so graciously that they could find no cause to take offense, begrudgingly realized and respected his superior self-discipline, and sat down and shared a meal with him.
So, there are many people out there who honestly believe that war is the only way. And the challenge to us is, “Can we find a way to blend with their energy?” I think we can. But I think that our own moral righteousness can be a tremendous obstacle to that.
I am not saying that Sun Tzu is the ultimate source of all wisdom. Rather, I am saying that there is a convergence between the highest wisdom regarding war-fighting and the basic logic of peacemaking. There is much, much more to peacemaking than the point at which that convergence occurs. But that point of convergence is a bridge. And so my question to you is, “Do you want to blow up that bridge, or do you want to build it up and strengthen it, and draw attention to it, so that millions of people can find their way across it?”
As someone who is against militarism in general and would be considered a pacifist by many, I don’t see what the problem with Sun Tzu is. I’ve read The Art of War and it’s on the surface a manual of war, but it’s really a philosophical text. The lessons in it are applicable to daily life and it’s not so much about power but rather about how to attain and use wisdom.
I personally think Colin Powell, as much as I don’t respect him, is probably the only Bush admin member (or former member, in this case) that has probably read AND understood The Art of War.
Though I have to say that Colin Powell has never impressed me morally, so I wasn’t the least bit surprised to see him cave in, despite knowing what a disaster it would be. In a sense, he’s the worst of them all, since he can’t credibly claim ignorance.
Colin Powell did not even try to hide his distaste for the administration’s policies; he would commiserate with the foreign diplomats over how bad Bush’s policies were even as he faithfully did the President’s bidding, including the infamous alumunum tubes presentation at the UN.
As much as I dislike Rice, she may be more effective simply for the fact that she and Bush are on the same page and Rice can thus represent Bush’s interests much better than Powell ever could.
I’m a woman. Please do not refer to me as a dude, it has a dismissive tone to it I almost find offensive.
You see his “harm reduction”., I don’t. I see “one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war that can thoroughly understand the profitable way of carrying it on.” My point in interlacing his words with the photographs is to make the point that anyone who has seen the true evils of war up close and personal (i.e. the photos) and still seeks to profit from such suffering, is a Monster. You may defend your point of view. But there are others that are valid. IMHO the photos speak of the reality of war much more eloquently than your Mr. Sun Tsu.
Sun Tsu’s book is a pragmatic manual for warfare from 1000s of years ago. Profiting by war seems to me to have been his main concern. Couching war as “harm reduction” is a pig in a poke. His only concern about harm seems to be how much it costs. Sun Tsu is interested in cost reduction and efficiency.
I’m not interested in being morally superior. I’m interested in reaching people who don’t already agree with me. I think it saves more lives, and averts more suffering.
This is not to say that I dismiss people who choose other approaches. Indeed, I believe that a diversity of approaches is absolutely vital. We need people like the Plowshares Movement who will pour their blood on nuclear weapons and spend years in jail for what is, essentially, a scramental act. And we need Business Leaders for Peace, as well as The Center for Defense Information, which is composed of former military officers. We need all these approaches and more.
Unfortunately, I do not sense the same openness from you. And that is what I find worrying.
And IMHO Kerry was right in his approach to terrorists as a “criminal enterprise” rather than a military force. Not communicating that message was one of the major reasons for his loss.
There was an international Gallup poll condusted within days of 9/11. The majority of people around the world said it was a criminal matter rather than a military one. There were only 3 exceptions: India and Israel by a landslide–which alone should have told us what not to do–and the US by a rather small amount: 54-30-16.
Considering the fact that almost no one put this view forward in the corporate media, it was amazing that so many people resisted the military frame.
I haven’t changed my mind about the approach, and suspect I’m not alone (vast understatement). I would have expected dems to at least submit legislation on the issue. So much for expectations.
I’ve said this as well since the afternoon of 9/11, that this is a matter of law enforcement, intelligence and diplomacy. To choose instead to make it a military matter is about the worst decision that could have been made. I also moved to NYC two weeks after that day as I had made plans a couple months before, but most of the people here only wanted revenge and I believe it was because that was the only option that was even floated in the mainstream corporate media (and by our politicians). There was not one voice that got on national television saying we really should try to get these guys and that we need to be smart about it and not just bomb some country some of them are hiding out in.
After 9-11, FAIR almost immediately documented the degree to which militarism drowned our any thought of alternatives. Their action alert, “Op-Ed Echo Chamber: on 11-2-01 noted:
Overall, the Post was more militaristic, running at least 32 columns urging military action, compared to 12 in the Times. But the Post also provided the only two columns we could find in the first three weeks after September 11 that argued for non-military responses; the Times had no such columns. Both dissenting columns were written by guest writers.
So, not one on-staff writer at either paper expressed a view that represented majority world opinion. That’s insular, baby! We’re talking ostrich territory.
The law-enforcement approach was so clearly superior. Putting Osama & Co. on trial, with a parade of victims and families of survivors–including a nice little bunch of Moslems–would have so humiliated them that it would have virtually killed off terrorism as a legitimate political option for at least a generation to come. Talk about a no-brainer! Of course there was no way we’d be that smart. IQ’s above 80 are strictly verbotten in such situations.
But, of course, the end of terrorism is hardly what BushCo wants. Then how would they justify going into Iraq for oil and Halliburton?
It is amazing how our strategy–inadvertantly?–is, whatever Sun Tzu says, do the opposite. Reading him, and remembering Vietnam, one can only come to the conclusion that the US will ultimately be thoroughly defeated.
It will be less fun than Vietnam . . .
where we find this kind of voice in our country right now. It is one of the things that causes my feelings of despair. I wrote about it in my first diary titled “Straining to hear the feminine voice.” Some might not see it as the feminine voice, but it is the balance that is needed to the idea that force and violence are the ONLY response possible to 9/11. Seems that even our Democratic leaders bought into framing our response as a “war on terror.” What if we had started by talking about the “war on Al Quida” and then went on to address other issues in the middle east with a balanced approach of understanding, diplomacy, and strength? Where is that voice in our country today? And what can we do to ensure that it is heard?
I would not be as despairing. I think the connection between Eisler and Lakoff should be pretty clear. (I don’t know that Lakoff has metnioned Eisler in writing, but I’ve certainly heard him mention her.) A very large number of Americans are with us, but do not have the framework articulated to make sense of what they feel and believe. That’s our job. Part of changing that situation is finding support in unlikely places–such as The Art of War.
The whole point of Rove’s attack is to beat back any hint of an alternative. That should tell us precisely what he most fears.
is Wesley Clark, warrior for peace and diplomat.
“supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”
Clark would have tried this and probably succeeded.
While I would hate to see the level of violence Sun-Tzu lived through erupt now (hell, take First Dynasty, Han, Three Kingdoms era, or many periods in Chinese history), we may see it because our administrations LOVES bloody war.
Did Sun Tzu love war? Nope. How about Kongming (Zhuge Liang)? Nope. They disliked war in times where EVERYONE seemed to revere waging it. That’s probably why they were so damn good at it.
Thanks for the reminder.
Bush’s brain, as dried up and shrunken as it is, sought understanding. He has answered the ‘why’ question over and over, why terrorists do what they do. ‘They hate America,’ ‘They hate our freedom,’ etc. So to start off with the premise that understanding the enemy is a bad thing is stupid. Rove knows better of course, but all he wants to do is divide America to get more power for himself and the Republicans.
Then there’s ‘understanding’ that goes beyond ‘they hate America’ and ‘freedom.’ Which also is a good thing to have (sheesh, it’s obscene that with a country like ours we have to defend the concept of understanding!)
It’d be helpful to know WHY they hate America and what we can DO about it other than simply killing them. Just thinking about it for a second tells us that killing people makes other people hate us…on and on.
But of course Rove knows all this, too. He purposely poses as an obscurantist for political gain. What else is obscene is that people support him, thereby also hating America, our values…
Rove and Al Qaeda are allies. Neither one of them really cares about the other. But they are invaluable as bogeymen for beating up on their domestic enemies, which are the only real enemies they have.
Karen Armstrong makes this point quite tellingly in The Battle for God. Fundamentalists are almost entirely indifferent to infidels. Infidels are going to hell anyway, why bother with the? But those within the faith who follow false doctrines (believing in justice, mercy and love, for example) are lost souls who could and should potentially be saved. And those who lead them astray are therefore the true enemy.
That’s us, in a nutshell. Us, and this carpenter fellow from Galilee.
The Battle for God should be on every progressive’s reading list. Armstrong has been studying fundamentalists (of several religions) for many years and her insights into the nature of fundamentalism are eye-opening.
Paul’s reference to their viciousness toward “their own” who don’t adhere exactly to what they have determined to be the only true beliefs explains, for example why the fundamentalist Christians’ contempt for those Christians who believe God created living things by evolution is much greater than toward me – an unapologetically atheist biology professor.
It also explains why the very idea of Muslim fundamentalist bin Laden allying himself with Saddam – who attempted to discredit and weaken Muslim religious leaders in every way that he could (because they were a threat to his power) – was absurd. It is much more plausible that bin Laden hates apostate Muslim Saddam more than he hates Christian infidel Bush. (Well, bin Laden probably thinks GWB is a Christian.)
in today’s cartoon at http://www.illustrateddailyscribble.com
Help! Do we have an html cheat-sheet for posting links? (This cartoon is worth a cut & paste, anyway.)
Soj’s FAQ and Old Tyme Jamboree (in the Recommended Diaries) contains the following:
Yes, you can add images (pictures) to your Diary or Comments… the html code is rather simple:
< img src=”imagelocation” > (minus the spaces)
If you find an image/picture on another website and use it on Booman Tribune, the original host of the image has to “deliver” the image everytime a user on Booman Tribune sees it. This can be quite expensive as it uses up “bandwidth”. The best thing for you to do if you want to include a picture in your Comment or Diary is to “host” the image yourself. Try going to Google and finding a server that will host images for little to no cost (there are many who will do it for free!).
on the image you want, and choose “Copy Link Location”. Then type
< img src=”” >
(without the spaces before “img” and after the quotes) in your comment and paste the link location inside the quotes. Choose Preview to make sure it’s correct.
As it happens, it’s not http://www.dailyillustratedscribble.com — it’s www.thedailyillustratedscribble.com. I searched for “illustrated daily scribble” under Google to find the right site.
Hope this helps.
Here’s what confuses me.
Karl Rove quote: “…we must understand our enemies…”
Where is the turnoff for our Christian brothers and sisters in the so-called Red States?
Does this contradict Christian philosophy as passed down to us in the Bible by the disciples of Jesus?
Why would this translate as disgust for liberals?
Why would this translate as disgust for liberals?
Do you mean why would wishing to understand one’s enemies (in this case radical Islamists) translate into conservative disgust for liberals?
Because they see empathy and understanding as feminine and a weakness. (As in “Bleeding Heart Liberal”.) And, having the bigger weapons and more advanced technology they believe they have the upper hand.
The problem with this is that, because we have such violent and greedy leadership (and for that matter a violent and greedy culture) we tend to do really stupid things like invade and occupy Iraq. Which is about as intelligent as nuking the Idaho Panhandle in retaliation for the Oklahoma City bombing. And then fire men like Richard Clarke for pointing out the consequences of this stupidity.
The problem is that the Osama bin Laden’s of the world understand us far better than we understand them. And this affords them many advantages.