I've heard that at the military's "war college", the place where they teach the leadership principles and history of warfare, they have a required reading list that includes "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. I read "The Art of War" a few years ago (a really great translation with commentary (the Denma Translation)
The Art of War: Denma Translation
and found that it was a great way to understand processes (business and office). I've also watched the ebbs and flows of politics with its framework. I have a handy desk calendar version with daily "quotes" and for the past few weeks I've been reading those quotes mediating on the lessons that can be learned. I've measured the Iraqi actions against some of those daily reminder and I've watched the SSN debate within its frame work.
I have to say, I'm glad the Repubs haven't a clue about what that book says, and I've wondered if the War College stopped requiring it as part of their development because if you read it, you have to see (of course this is hind site for the Iraqi situation, but not for SSN) how they've failed to take it into consideration.
More below the fold
For example - January 4th, 2005 - saying for the day from Chapter 2 - On Waging Battle:
When the generals as haughty and the soldiers are lazy, in their greed for gain they forget that there may be an unexpected turn of events - this is the greatest disadvantage.
In the past, generals were separated from the political leaders. In fact, there are some warning about how "generals" need to counsel and provide advice to the leader -
One whose general is capable and not interfered with by the ruler will be victorious
- but if you look at BushCO as the "generals" and his cabinet advisors/political operatives as sub-generals (not in the military sense) you can see that in their laziness and unwillingness to prepare, they have suffered the greatest disadvantage - or as also stated in Chapter 2
Thus in war, I have heard tell of a foolish hast, but I have yet to see a case of cleverly dragging on the hostilities.
In Bush/Chaney/Rumfield's quest for the oil fields and the engagement of troops, they made haste use of their resources, failing to understand the nature of the enemy they sought to engage and thereby dragging out hostilities. Cost - thousands of lives and damage to both private Iraqi citizens and American troops, lose of face overseas and the sowing of seeds for civil war within the country after the American troops pull out.
On the other side (Iraqi) they followed some of the advice in Chapter 7 - "Armed Contest" where it says:
Fool opponents into taking it easy, then make haste
and in Chapter 3, "Planning the Attack" where is states:
One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious.
Of course, the insurgents are making full use of the lessons in Chapter 6 -
If the enemy is rested, tire him; if he is well fed, make him hungry; if he is at rest, move him. Go to a position to which he must race and race to a position he does not expect.
Thus it is with the insurgents in Iraqi. Only fools would rush head-on into a type ground warfare given the training and equipment US ground forces have, so to NOT expect the development of local uprisings and small attack groups only means the planners believed their own press releases. In fact, Chapter 4:
If opponents have no formation to find out, no gap or slack to take advantage of, how can you overcome them even if you are well equipped?
You can't. Not without the results as they have happened during the last 12 months that involve the loss of life (both sides), consumption of American fiscal resources and with very little to show for he effort other than "free elections".