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.