Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War
America’s way of war is, actually, not so new under the sun. Centuries ago, China’s Sun Tzu would have recognized some of our ways and errors. Indeed he would be rolling over in his grave at seeing how his famous dictums for successful wars are ignored and violated by America: a trillion-dollar war in Iraq, losing our allies, creating more and more fanatical enemies willing to do suicide missions against us, borrowing from foreigners to finance our wars. In fairness, part of our failure is the simple determinant that democracies can’t run empires and most armies hate occupation duty. Our military still trains to re-fight World War II, not for unending wars of occupation and trans-national terrorism. So now we fear and isolate ourselves from most Muslims, nearly a quarter of the world’s population, and are nearly bankrupted. However, bin Laden’s campaign followed Sun Tzu’s teachings to a "T." (See "How Bin Laden Bankrupted America." For why we can’t win our wars, see Andrew Bacevich’s “When Was the Last Time We Won A War?“)
Following are some of Sun Tzu’s main maxims from The Art of War and how and why America breaks them:
"The best victory is to win without actually fighting. Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting."
Americans instead want to start the fighting; there is little interest in winning without war. Witness Iraq, where recent British government hearings on the war repeatedly cite how Washington wanted to get the war started as quickly as possible. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was even reported as saying that Afghanistan, unlike Iraq, didn’t have enough targets that go "boom" for Washington’s intimidation strategy of "shock and awe." There was little awareness of the warnings, such as stated by Israel’s murdered former president, Yitzhak Rabin, who opposed the first Iraq War in 1991, that no nation knows when it starts a war, where it will lead, nor what will be its final consequences. Above all, Sun Tzu warned, are the costs of wars, something almost irrelevant to the regimes in Washington.
There are several reasons for this. Many Washington interests benefit from wars (see below). It’s usually easy to sell the American public on going to war. War makes for exciting TV. Most Americans like to see video of fighter planes, missiles, tanks charging through the desert, and our brave fighting men (and women). War represents no fear of devastating consequences or costs to most Americans, or at least we used to think so.
Politicians don’t vote to "win" wars. Rather, they vote to show that they are "doing something," that they are "tough on terrorism," that they are "defending America," and to send business to companies in their home districts. If Washington really wanted to "win" a permanent victory, it would address the grievances of Muslims, including the Palestinian issue, rather than just claiming that they are "evil" and "hate freedom." That is why most of the world thinks America wants unending wars so as to justify keeping its major new air bases in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Know thyself and know thy enemy. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results 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."
War for most Americas is sort of like a football game: one "wins" and then goes home. Knowing our own weaknesses, much less those of our enemy, is irrelevant for the war-wanters. We knew almost nothing and cared less about Muslim cultures, their religion, why they hated us, how to win them over, their history and sensitivity to having been colonialized, their tribalism, and so on. The CIA and State Department hardly had or even now have many officers who even speak any of the foreign languages involved.
With bin Laden, our leaders argued that he did not mean what he said in his speeches, that his attacks were because of American bases on holy Muslim land, injury done to Palestinians, and to the deaths of Iraqi civilians under years of American bombing and economic blockade. Instead they tell us that America was attacked because we are "free" and "good." Consequently, more and more Muslims see America as their enemy, while we now fear them so much that nationals of 14 nations must now be bodily searched before being allowed to visit America.
"There is no instance of a country having benefited from a long war."
War is very profitable in America for all sorts of interests and careers (see TheWarParty.com). Since 9/11 hundreds of billions of dollars have gone to the military-industrial, homeland security, and war contractor complexes (think Blackwater) for new weaponry, consulting fees, and high-paying jobs, most of which are irrelevant to the war on terror or any existing threat to America. The War Party needs and wants "long wars" and permanent enemies. "Winning" is not to its benefit; witness the severely curtailed armaments spending after the collapse of communism. War entrenches powerful congressmen: e.g., the F-22 fighter plane had subcontractors (and consequently donors and high-paying jobs) in 44 states. Congressional earmarks are a case in point. Money for a "bridge to nowhere" can be exposed and challenged, while money for missiles to nowhere is almost never questioned. After all, who knows what they should cost, how many are necessary, and whether or not they even work. Think now that it is costing a million dollars per soldier to put 30,000 more men in Afghanistan. Most of this money is spent in, or comes back to, American companies. Ironically, much of it also funds the Taliban enemy to help keep the war going, as supplies must be trucked in from Pakistan through territory which they control. The Taliban then charge the trucking companies hefty fees to allow them through. Similarly a recent Washington Post report stated that most economic aid to Afghanistan was paid to Americans or American companies. Think back to George Orwell’s 1984: permanent war benefits the government. Also millions of Americans want prolonged war and chaos in Palestine to bring about Armageddon. They think war will give them a free pass to heaven.
Try to break up your enemy’s alliances.
Instead, America succeeds in agitating and killing disparate Muslims so that they unite against us, e.g., the Sunnis and Shi’ites and most of the Muslim world. Meanwhile, bin Laden worked to divide America’s alliances so that we stand almost alone in fielding armies to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. It used to be just Palestinians who threatened America. Now our enemies include Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Afghans, Pakistanis, Yemenis, Somalis, Nigerians, and even white European converts.
The best thing is to take the enemy’s country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good.
Instead we turned Iraq into a broken nation. A million of its citizens, mostly the educated middle classes, have fled the country; government ministries are chaotic; its electoral system is dysfunctional (put in by us); its ethnic sectors are almost at war; terrorism and kidnapping is still rampant.
The American way of war has little capacity for postwar planning. Think of abandoning Afghanistan in chaos and misery after the Soviet collapse. Think of the First Iraq War. The U.S. left the nation "bombed back to the Stone Age," and then put on a brutal economic blockade to prevent reconstruction for nearly 10 years, which left a million Iraqis, mainly children, dead of starvation and disease. Think back to World War II, when America delivered Central Europe and Manchuria (China’s industrial heartland) to Soviet communism and then was surprised at the consequences. Postwar policies in Iraq were placed in the hands of a Likudnik, Douglas Feith. Various interests in Washington want to see more such destructive wars started against Iran, Sudan, Syria, and now Yemen, which would turn them into failed states like Somalia.
Empires are lost when inadequate men become leaders and wage war for base reasons or for no reason at all.
King George lost his American colonies through stupid tax policies; World War I cost England, Austria, Russia, and Turkey their empires. George Bush’s war obviously fits.
Other of Sun Tzu’s maxims are very successfully executed by the Taliban and al-Qaeda against America:
Appear at points which the enemy must hasten to defend; go swiftly to place where you are not expected.
This if perfect for bin Laden.
That general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack.
Obviously America is now trying to defend every border crossing, every transatlantic airplane, every U.S. embassy, every CIA station chief, and above all every American city from nuclear terrorism. At the same time, we don’t know where to attack and what to attack as al-Qaeda metastasizes all over the Muslim world.
If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
Bin Laden follows this rule, aggravating our arrogance and self-righteousness, causing us to fall into more of his traps to bankrupt ourselves.
Fight not unless the position is critical. The good general is full of caution. This is the way to keep a country at peace and an army intact.
America’s Army is no longer an intact force. First of all, the costs of putting "boots on the ground" are now astronomical, some half a million dollars per man. The National Guard and reservists now know that volunteering as a young man for service can mean years and years of occupation duty in strange nations where they are hated and being constantly recalled for duty. America’s army and America will never be the same.
Read more by Jon Basil Utley
- Benghazi, Mali, and the Need for a Defensive American Strategy – January 27th, 2013
- Romney, War, and the Republican Base: Libertarians May Split – September 24th, 2012
- Polling the Right Questions on Defense – Voters Get It Right – April 4th, 2012
- Call It the ‘Militarism Budget’ – March 14th, 2011
- J Street Offers Alternative to AIPAC – March 6th, 2011





ZionismIsRacism
February 4th, 2010 at 8:02 am
WTF is this supposed to mean? " It used to be just Palestinians who threatened America."???? Seriously? You think of all places PALESTINE is dangerous to america???? they can barely launch bottle rockets in defense to the blitzkrieg of illegal weapons apartheid israel rains on them on a regular basis (weapons either gotten for free from america, or from american tax dollars OR from spying on americans and stealing our ideas/technology, then undercutting our companies at lower prices) all in all this was a good article but to say palestinians were a threat to us is just absolutely preposterous. A lot of them hate us and with just cause, our 51st satellite state in the mideast is the only direction you need to look to see where 99.99% of our problems emanate from.
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest February 7, 2010
February 4th, 2010 at 6:55 am
[...] Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War by Jon Basil Utley [...]
epppie
February 4th, 2010 at 6:16 pm
On one level, this is a good analysis . But there is a larger picture where Al Queda is a tool, and the real opponent is the potential China/Russia axis; seen on that level, America's strategy is very cunning. It is slowly surrounding, intimidating, bribing and choking any potential opponents who might participate in such an axis, from Russia to Venezuela. Look at Russia; despite the Georgia war, it is pathetically wriggling on the US/Nato hook. It dare not even defend an important ally such as Iran, and you can be sure that when push comes to shove, it won't defend Venezuela either. It wants EU gas money and it is afraid. It has been intimidated and bribed.
On yet a higher level, the real contestants are global elites and the rest of humanity. The real purpose of war and rumors of war is to keep elites in power and to keep the masses in control.
Latter day warmongers aren't so dim. They'd make Sun Tzu's head spin.
Anonymous
February 4th, 2010 at 11:48 am
[...] [...]
MvGuy
February 4th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
ZiR, Comon…. It was an aside…, Like we are all Leon Klinghofferz now..!!?? an departure, digression, discursion, interpolation, interposition, parenthesis, tangent, throwaway…………..
Yes, the Israelis running Israel are not very nice people, and they are being seduced by hateful answers to their problems… I'm sure they will be paying dearly for having abandoned the moral guiding precepts of Judaism.. & developing a taste for sadistic acts like shooting pregnant women.
Classic example of the abused becoming abusers……. They will have to deal with their own results.
MvGuy
February 4th, 2010 at 7:17 pm
& eppie..dude…. Anytime Russia or China want us out of Afghanistan, we will see the "Taliban" with SAMs and antiship cruise missiles targeting the supply lines.. They LOVE 2C the U.S. bogged down in an unwinnable quagmire of war and debt… AND look at who got the oil contracts in Iraq… Hint. not the party that spent a trillion…. The occupation did not translate into profits, only debt and LOSS..!!
Will Afghanistan be any different..?? China will work out a Turkmenistan transit route while the U.S. and NATO spin their wheels fighting the impossible fight in Afghanistan….Why would Russia and China want that…??? They are happily profiting from the bleeding of the brain dead giant invader…
Steve Naidamast
February 4th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
"Empires are lost when inadequate men become leaders and wage war for base reasons or for no reason at all."
–>
King George lost his American colonies through stupid tax policies; World War I cost England, Austria, Russia, and Turkey their empires. George Bush’s war obviously fits.
————————————————————————————————————————————–
King George did not lose the American Colonies because of "stupid tax policies". He lost the war when he relieved General Howe, a general knowledgeable of Colonial fighting and the terrain and who had just about defeated the American Continentals, with General Cornwallis, an excellent European commander but not one suited for the free-for-all fighting style in North America.
The tax policies imposed on the US that the American educational system loves to tout as the cause of the war are a myth. The tax policies that became a "battle cry" for revolt was at the direct insistence of the American colonial governments demanding that they be treated as Royal Colonies as Pennsylvania was. England complied with the demand, which subsequently also came with a number of additional and rather minor taxes that all Royal Colonies were charged.
The "stamp tax", the most notorious of them all was a tax on Royal Crown paper such as newspaper and official memorandum paper. It was also the forebear of the costs each American pays for postage stamps today…
To read more on this subject read Fred Anderson's ", Crucible of War", a definitive study on the "7 Years War" and the life and times of the American Colonies from 1753 to 1762… Its a tough and long read so it is not for the feint of heart…
As to England, Austria, Russia and Turkey in World War I…
None of these combatants had any desire to go to war, except of course for Churchill of England, a man who was aching to get into the fight. Austria, was dragged into the conflict when Kaiser Willie attacked France and had no ambitions to go to war. Russia was falling apart prior to the war but in fact caused the entire conflict when it mobilized its divisions. It was Kaiser Willie who tried to intervene and stop the mobilization knowing what the results would be. Turkey was dragged into the war by an unauthorized docking of a German u-boat at one of its warm water ports. Turkey had been doing eveything possible to avoid involvement when this happened… (for this see Barbara Tuchman's, "The Guns of August"…)
The American Conservative » Sun Tzu, American-Style
February 5th, 2010 at 11:46 pm
[...] the wisdom of Sun Tzu to America’s current foreign policy mess. Here’s a taste of his Antiwar.com essay: America’s way of war is, actually, not so new under the sun. Centuries ago, China’s Sun Tzu [...]
Korbo Info » C’est guère de l’art
February 9th, 2010 at 9:43 pm
[...] un article utilisant les concepts décrits il y a 2500 nas par Sun Tzu dans L’Art de la guerre pour [...]
Minaret of Freedom Weblog » News and Analysis (2/10/2010)
February 10th, 2010 at 9:40 am
[...] Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War (Anti War) [...]
Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War « Don Vandergriff
February 12th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
[...] February 12, 2010 by don A biography of the author of this excellent essay can be found here. Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War by Jon Basil Utley, February 04, 2010 http://original.antiwar.com/utley/2010/02/03/sun-tzu/ [...]
CPAC and the Wars by Jon Basil Utley — Antiwar.com
February 22nd, 2010 at 4:30 am
[...] Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War – February 3rd, 2010 [...]
Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War « thelittlep
February 19th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
[...] Jon Basil Utley Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War | The Cult of ZGeek
March 4th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
[...] Source [...]
Fred
May 12th, 2012 at 8:10 am
Sorry who is Al-Qaeda again? Oh you mean Al-CIAda that Neocon boogeyman you're supposed to live in fear of and be happy the government is turning the U.S. into a police state and disastrous waging illegal wars to chase.
Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War
November 12th, 2012 at 1:23 am
[...] Source [...]
Ms. Ann Thrope
February 22nd, 2013 at 8:27 pm
It occurs to me that the observations the author makes here about war could also be made about crime in America. No one would ever get elected if they said that they would cut $1.95 from the defense budget, or from police budgets. Perhaps the same can be said of our runaway gun culture: we see nothing but nails needing to be hammered, and so the only skills we think to develop require force. Yes, we need and army and police, and even sometimes our own personal guns for 2- or 4-legged varmints. But can we entertain the notion that diplomacy, on national, local, and even personal levels, has been too long neglected at too great a price?
Military Readiness–for What? | The American Conservative
March 5th, 2013 at 3:52 pm
[...] and 4,000 within the U.S? Shouldn’t we heed the greatest war historian in history, Sun Tzu, about how to fight our wars? Shouldn’t we recognize that America can’t win wars against guerillas, especially with a [...]
Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War by Jon Basil Utley — Antiwar.com | Now, I'm Just Amused.
March 5th, 2013 at 7:13 pm
[...] Sun Tzu and America’s Way of War by Jon Basil Utley — Antiwar.com. [...]
Military Readiness–for What? | Tony Johnson
March 5th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
[...] and 4,000 within the U.S? Shouldn’t we heed the greatest war historian in history, Sun Tzu, about how to fight our wars? Shouldn’t we recognize that America can’t win wars against guerillas, especially with a [...]