War Politics

October 29, 2007 by Alpha.

Some time in the sixth century BC in China, Sunzi composed a code of maxims for the sensible prosecution of a war–not just the how, but the when and the why. He writes in his Art of War that “to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting,” and that “the clever combatant imposes his will on the enemy, but does not allow the enemy’s will to be imposed on him.”

There’s a great deal of murmuring and muttering continuing to circle concerning whether or not and if so to what extent there presently looms a broadening of the occupation of Iraq into Iran.

Of course, no one is talking about it like that. The discussion seems to be about “bunker busters” and “bombardments” with the plain assumption that Iran won’t retaliate in any way. Does that really seem like something that even could happen?

If we were to hypothetically pursue some strategic initiative involving smart bombs and precision-guided widgets and whatnot, here’s what would happen: the 1,458 km border between Iraq and Iran would evaporate, a large portion of the 30 million Iranians ages 18-49 would be hastily activated for military service and they would fortify the border and in a trice we would find ourselves involved in a three way regional conflict between the predominantly Sunni Iraqis and the predominantly Shi’ite Iranians, neither of whom have much love for the Stars and Stripes.

The most successful combatant is he who imposes his will on his opponents without resorting to war to do it. While recreating the preconditions to the genocide in Rwanda may serve someone’s interests it certainly would not serve the interests of the United states. What is the enlightened nation to do when faced with an oppositional, defiant opponent and regional rival?

First, we must remember that we do not and cannot act in a vacuum. Iran would respond to any at of war with a vigorous response, if only because the leadership of Iran would have to respond as such in order to maintain their authority over their own people.

Second, we must consider our position. We are involved in two wars now, with almost half our military missions staffed by private contractors (or mercenaries, if you prefer). Our ability/willingness to deploy another 100,000-plus soldiers to keep the Iranians out of Iraq is pretty well depleted. One wonders whether Americans have much stomach to fight a war with one group so that we can “protect” another war.

Third, we have to consider where exactly we would like to be. It seems as though there is some division on this point: do we prefer war or peace? There’s certainly some sizable portion of America that seems to relish war. They bask in the simplicity and the unity of a nice, long, ugly scrap. I understand–there is a purity of both action and purpose, and an intoxicating abandonment of critical thought that can be very charming.

Whenever we consult the angels of our better judgment, whenever we take a moment to think of honor, dignity and nobility, we know that peace is preferred.

So why, I ask finally, would anyone suggest that we bomb Iran?

Posted in Iraq, National, Rants | 1 Comment »