This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Sun Tzu And The Cost Of War
Submitted by Erico Tavares of Sinclair & Co.
Sun Tzu and the Cost of War
What if military strategy was timeless?
Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher, and is credited to have written “The Art of War”, a seminal treatise on managing conflict and warfare. It is uncertain when he actually lived, but some traditional historians date his lifetime to 544–496 BC.
The Art of War discusses military strategy within the wider context of public administration, politics and planning. Organized in thirteen chapters, the text outlines theories of battle, but also advocates diplomacy and cultivating relationships with other nations as essential to the health of a state. For centuries, it has been regarded as the definite reading for strategists and warriors of all types.
Sun Tzu’s work remains highly influential to this day. An internet search with his name produces over 10 million hits; in recent years there have been several best-selling translations and books applying the strategies to different fields, including negotiation, leadership and business.
So influential in fact that certain authors claim China’s leaders follow a modern adaptation of his principles as they seek to transform their country into a world superpower in the 21 century. Exactly at a time when the Western Establishment seems to be very busy brushing them aside.
Sun Tzu in Action
Sun Tzu observed, analyzed and distilled what works and what doesn’t at war, and eventually developed an approach which transcended the battlefield. He emphasized the need to have a strategy planned well in advance of any campaign based on a detailed assessment of both adversaries’ strengths and weaknesses: “If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”
Open warfare should only be pursued as a last resort. In fact, Sun Tzu regarded winning without fighting as the pinnacle of military achievement. However, when there was no other choice, then the fighting should be as swift as possible: “There is no instance of a nation benefitting from prolonged warfare.” That applies to the loser of course but also the victor, which is forced to expend substantial resources and in the end may not get much spoils to show for it, while becoming vulnerable himself to other attacks.
Sun Tzu also warned us against relying too much on technological superiority: “Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.” Such superiority may win battles but not necessarily the war, especially in the presence of asymmetric equalizers. And it is very costly.
His principles remain relevant to this day not only because they were organized during a time of substantial human conflict in an advanced civilization - they are also deeply rooted in natural law. Even the mighty lion chooses its prey carefully, aiming for the weakest of the bunch in the most economical way possible.
The Cost of War
Stephen Daggett, Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets at the Congressional Research Service (considered to be the Congress’ think tank), authored a report in June 2010 outlining the cost of all the major wars the US has been involved in. His estimates, as well as a recent update on the cost of all the Post 9/11 wars by Professor Neta C. Crawford at Boston University, are presented in the following table:
Source: Congressional Research Service (June 2010), Boston University (June 2014).
(a) US$ billion, in constant 2011 dollars, except for Post 9/11 which is in current dollars.
(b) Union and Confederacy added together.
(c) Includes $1 trillion in future obligations for care of Veterans through 2054.
One important fact stands out from this table. Not only are the Post 9/11 entanglements the longest of any war the US has been involved in, they are also the most expensive – even more than World War II, when the US was fighting on two major fronts against heavily industrialized powers. Rather than achieving victory quickly as advocated by Sun Tzu, the US has been involved in very costly wars for well over a decade now.
When it comes to ensuring global security it can get lonely at the top. None of the traditional US allies have the military capabilities and even the ambition to project power at the same level. As an example, the US has 19 commissioned aircraft carriers, followed by France at #2 with only four. Russia and China only have one each.
These days US politicians generally endorse this militaristic approach to governing world affairs. This might be understandable as the geopolitical landscape has become incredibly complex and uncertain since 9/11. However, after years of waging war, conflict is now expanding as opposed to receding, particularly in the all-important Middle East where openly anti-West radical groups are conquering large territories. As such, a material US disentanglement over the foreseeable future looks increasingly less likely.
Sun Tzu had something to say about this: “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” Seen in this light, has the Post 9/11 military strategy made the US a victorious warrior?
While all of this is taking place, the US’ ideological foes can afford the luxury of sitting back and employing a more measured approach: “To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.” Indeed, nothing breaks morale more than the prospect of never ending foreign wars.
Meanwhile, the debts keep piling up. The Pentagon’s continued ability to project power might become increasingly dependent not on its brave soldiers but on its creditors. Sun Tzu would agree.
»
- 21621 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
All warfare is based on deception
Except in the case of the Sino-Soviet dispute which occured shortly after the Korean War, the war which proved that America was not going to sit on its hands when a communist nation tried to seize land not its own.
Did Stalin or Mao know exactly what the reaction of the US was going to be when the North invaded South Korea? Did they eventually find out?
After the armistice was signed in 1953, according to your theory, that's when the Great Falling Out occurred.
The conflict between them was not based on deception. It was based on transparency. Their dirty linen fluttered around the American media for all to see.
***Upon receiving his fourth star in 1951 at age 44, LeMay became the youngest four-star general in American history since Ulysses S. Grant and was the youngest four-star general in modern history as well as the longest serving in that rank.[28] In 1956 and 1957 LeMay implemented tests of 24-hour bomber and tanker alerts, keeping some bomber forces ready at all times. LeMay headed SAC until 1957, overseeing its transformation into a modern, efficient, all-jet force. LeMay's tenure was the longest over an American military command in nearly 100 years.[29]
Despite popular claims that LeMay advanced the notion of preventive nuclear war, the historical record indicates LeMay actually advocated justified preemptive nuclear war. Several documents show LeMay advocating preemptive attack of the Soviet Union, had it become clear the Soviets were preparing to attack SAC or the US. In these documents, which were often the transcripts of speeches before groups such as the National War College or events such as the 1955 Joint Secretaries Conference at the Quantico Marine Corps Base, LeMay clearly advocated using SAC as a preemptive weapon, if and when such action was necessary.[30]****
-----------------------------------
***LeMay was appointed Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force in July 1957, serving until 1961, when he was made the fifth Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force on the retirement of GenThomas White. His belief in the efficacy of strategic air campaigns over tactical strikes and ground support operations became Air Force policy during his tenure as chief of staff.
As chief of staff, LeMay clashed repeatedly with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, Air Force Secretary Eugene Zuckert, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Maxwell Taylor. ***
-----------------------------
****During the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, LeMay clashed again with U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Defense Secretary McNamara, arguing that he should be allowed to bomb nuclear missile sites in Cuba. He opposed the naval blockade and, after the end of the crisis, suggested that Cuba be invaded anyway, even after the Russians agreed to withdraw.
And at the same time LeMay was influencing his junior officers, Senator Joseph McCarthy was encouraging more anti-communist sentiment of his own.
If American officials, after the Korean War, didn't believe as you do now, that there was a schism between the two strongest communist nations, couldn't a powerhouse like LeMay provoke a bombing frenzy among the American people?
But if you look at the 'conflict' as artifice, then the Soviets and China score at 'hat trick'.
1) The American War Party is mollified and think the two are at each other's throats
2) Nixon, not unlike Wild Theories, buys the "rift and animosity" and decides to support the weaker of the two adversaries. Trade opens up and China begins to bank what will become $2 trillion.
3) In 1963 there were 50,000 US troops in Korea and Eisenhower's 900 advisors in Vietnam were up to 16,000. The Soviets and the Chinese feared an American buildup in Vietnam, a blitzkrieg victory over the North, and then the US military moving on the Korean Peninsula to settle an old score.
So the Chinese and the Soviets who had had border disputes for hundreds of years, picked a spot where there had been one in the 17th (?) century. A bend in the Amur River less than 500 miles from China's border with North Korea.
As the American involvement in Vietnam grew along with its armed forces, so did the number of Soviet divisions at the bend in the Amur increase.
At the height of America's intervention in Vietnam in the early 70's, the Soviets had 22 divisions along the Amur. And when Nixon announced plans for the withdrawal of American troops, those Soviet divisions began to return home.
ah, so much stuff, tis unsanitory for a normal man to know too much ya know
I wouldn't have a clue if it was by design, or they simply saw an opportunity to go along with the gullible ruse and just went with it, that's too much thinking on a weekend for me.
Your language is so fresh and youthful, you probably weren't even around in the 50's. Here in America we had television, movies sporting event's, drag racing on city streets and it was the beginning of the massive consumption of beer.
In poor Russia and China they had very little of any of that.
They had their chess, and their music and ballet and thinking about how to get even with the US for the economic blockade it had put on them since the 20's.
The closest Americans ever came to feigning a split with anyone, was when they were in high school screwing around with their best friend's girl friend. They wouldn't even look at her in the halls or the cafeteria. No one was any the wiser.
And after choir practice on Thursday nights, occasionally they got to dip their wick.
The insanity of the American military after Russia exploded the bomb in 1948 needs no explanation.
And that Russia would send 22 divisions to the Chinese border, the help them if the US invaded China from North Korea a second time id Foreign Policy 101. Okay, so the fact the they pretended to be sore at one another was a little Sun Tzuie
The fact that US/Nixon policy in the early 70's was to split farther apart the two antagonists had nothing to do with the Soviets or the Chinese and their deception.
The American's came up with that idea all by themselves.
It was either kismet or serendipity.
And it was an early example of blowback.
"At the height of America's intervention in Vietnam in the early 70's, the Soviets had 22 divisions along the Amur. And when Nixon announced plans for the withdrawal of American troops, those Soviet divisions began to return home."
Interesting. The Sino-Soviet Dispute looked very real from where I was watching, and none I knew who knew the players doubted its reality. It played havoc with the once-formidible world Communist movement, and the withdrawal of Soviet economic cooperation after about 1961 was devastating to China's reconstruction and industrialization efforts.
But that buildup of Soviet troops on the Amur and its subsequent dispersal is something to think about. That was a huge buildup against a limited part of their common border for what was billed as a defensive deployment.
bidsey, what other explanations have you considered?
Why is "post" capitalized?
The entire MIC was destroyed in one second of trading March 10th @11:00am Bear Stearns time 2008. Any posturing by the MIC since March 10th 2008 is defensive at best. The MIC is tactically laughable when it comes to understanding macroeconomics, quantum mechanical engineering, quantum physics, or just plain old mathematics. Empiricism
proper beat the MIC into submission, retreat, and complete self destruction
in less than one second March 10th 2008. Clearly, the MIC is as weak as the weakest link in the chain of control that governs it. Americans en masse don't have one clue as to what hit March 10th 2008 @ 11:00am
Bear Stearns time. Wall Street was the weakest link in the MIC and Wall Street should be given full credit for taking it down and out just like Lehman Bros. and Richard Fuld. In essence, the Gorilla of Wall Street was the King Kong that ate the MIC by his expert ability to dither long enough to ensure Chapter 11 September 16th 2008.
War is a massive transfer of wealth from the taxpaying masses to the 1% who make money waging it.
Islam has been at war with itself and the rest of the world for 1400 years. But it is all the fault of the US. If Jefferson had just left the Barbary Pirates alone.
Sun Tzu has it all backwards. Rehypothecated stimulus from the war machine is the only means of keeping the USA afloat. Clearly reason and logic, let alone strategy have no influence on any outcome that isn't financialized.
The USA has already lost. Lost the middle east, lost the Americas, lost Asia and Europe is accelerating.
Tzu would be laughing in his grave at each and every US "citizen" -- giving fellatio to Fascism on the Wall Street alters of ill repute "for a better life.." (at their own expense).
Let it burn.