Attack Is a Matter of Vulnerability

As the US military surrounds Iraq, the great forum provided by LewRockwell.com has presented many arguments concerning an invasion of Iraq. Adding weight to these arguments, it is time to examine the wisdom of such an aggressive measure, particularly from a military standpoint.

Proponents for an invasion of Iraq fail to offer much in the form of wisdom. Wisdom, as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, entails the ability to discern or judge what is true or right, usually by aid of learning through the ages or the wise teachings of ancient sages. Granted some proponents of invasion have looked to the past for legitimacy, however, Gene Callahan pointed out that the historical proponents twisted the past for an invasion justification. Such mendacity, by invasion proponents, lacks wisdom as well.

Using as our moral guide, Sun Tzu's The Art of War, let us examine the wisdom of past invasions as well as of the proposed invasion (attack) of Iraq. I believe the wisdom offered by Sun Tzu should be internalized in all people who use arms, from the "Army of One" to those exercising their Second Amendment rights. There are many interpretations of the Chinese text, and I particularly like the translation written by Thomas Cleary. I carry a pocket edition of the book in my backpack. The book has practical applications for fistfights, arguments, and military operations.

Sun Tzu says:

In ancient times skillful warriors first made themselves invincible, and then watched for vulnerability in their opponents. Invincibility is in oneself, vulnerability is in the opponent. Therefore skillful warriors are able to be invincible, but they cannot cause opponents to be vulnerable.

Invincibility is a matter of defense, vulnerability is a matter of attack.

Looking first at invincibility, we see that it is in control of the individual or the decision-maker. A warrior can build his faculties such that no opponent can successfully attack him. A great example of invincibility, the Swiss army, emulates Sun Tzu's code perfectly. The Swiss militia was so strong and invincible, that the Nazis did not dare attempt a maneuver on the Swiss. With every man armed and with the ability to hit point targets at 300 meters, the Swiss example points to another of Sun Tzu's great maxims, "…those who win every battle are not really skillful – those who render others' armies helpless without fighting are the best of all."

Looking to the flip side, vulnerability, we are instructed that it is a matter of attack. If an individual chooses to attack, then the individual will become vulnerable. In the simple example of a fistfight on the playground, the aggressing kid will become vulnerable if he lunges to punch another in the face. He will be vulnerable to a defensive counterattack by the defender, particularly if that defender has made himself invincible. The aggressor will become vulnerable to the school authorities and parents enforcing a code of conduct. In an argument one can use ad hominem attacks or other mendacious tactics to intimidate an opponent into accepting a thesis. However, such attacks make an argument vulnerable, weakening it to a fallacy.

In the sphere of military conflict, aggressors are always made vulnerable by their attacks. Hannibal's invasion of Rome devastated his great army. The aggressive Spanish Armada was annihilated by the defense of the English navy. Pickett's charge was vulnerable to the defensive, high ground position of the Union army, leading to the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. In fact, General Lee's invasion into the North ultimately led to the fall of the Confederacy. In World War II, both Germany and Japan aggressively attacked vast amounts of territory. Eventually, Ally forces took advantage of Axis vulnerability and destroyed it. Of course, in both the Civil War and WWII, the US Federal involvement in counterattacks made it more vulnerable with the erosion of civil liberties and the destruction of productive economic capital. In our most recent example, Saddam Hussien invaded Kuwait to give his regime greater access to Persian Gulf ports. Despite the permissive stance by the US ambassador, Hussien's regime made itself vulnerable to US/UN counterattack. Hussien's army was driven from Kuwait and his country was laid to ruin by years of embargo and air strikes.

From both a rational and empirical perspective, vulnerability is a matter of attack.

Now how about the current invasion of Iraq? Is it wise? Well, the United States will most likely defeat the Iraqi army and end the Hussien regime. But the attack will make the US vulnerable. It will make the US quite vulnerable to attacks from the Arab world. Whether Sunni or Shi, the US will become terrorist target number one, replacing Israel. US military units deployed all over the planet will become a greater target than they already are. And most of all, the union of States will become more vulnerable to terrorism with its collectivist defense system spread thin all over the planet and its civil liberties (the Bill of Rights are a hallmark of self-defense) in shambles.

Sun Tzu says that attacks are for times of surplus or fullness. It’s hard to justify that this country is at a time of surplus. Right now the future of the US is mortgaged to a cross of paper. Mired in debt, the economic health of Americans from the consumer to the government is on life support. Would it be wise to attack from such a point of emptiness? According to Sun Tzu, no:

When a country is impoverished by military operations, it is because of transporting supplies to a distant place. Transport supplies to a distant place, and the populace will be impoverished.

Unlike the first Gulf War, this one will not involve financial assistance from Kuwaiti Emirs, Saudi Princes, or other countries involved in a coalition against Iraq. This time a majority of the war will be financed through monetary inflation and the issuance of Treasury debt. Also unlike the first Gulf War, this war may need to involve a siege of Baghdad to put Saddam in checkmate. It would be hard for the politicians to call for one of their pretend air war victories like in the Balkans or Afghanistan. Such as siege would be at a devastating cost, due to the drain sieges have on supplies, and most of all lives. As supplies are drained in the siege, costs will be compounded with the mobilization of supplies to the distant place. All this, of course, will be done at the expense of the US taxpayer and holders of US dollars, impoverished by one of the biggest logistics efforts in the history of warfare. Let's also not forget that we are sending supplies, equipment, and personnel to other distant places like, the Balkans, Western Europe, various points in Africa, Indonesia, Okinawa, and Korea. Such a drain on the US economy can not be sustained forever. Eventually, the market will master a vulnerable US government.

This will be the first big-time US war, primarily financed by the US, since Vietnam. It was then, in 1973, when the last remnants of any monetary discipline, under the Bretton Woods Agreement, were abolished by the Nixon administration. This time with absolutely no monetary discipline (or military discipline for that matter), the US will make its economy more vulnerable than it ever has in its history. As anyone who studies the sound principles of money understands, the value of paper money is based on trust. It will be hard for the world to trust the currency of a nation that is no longer free, no longer able to abide by its laws, and seen by the world as an aggressor to the sovereignty of others.

So attack! But don't forget it will make you quite vulnerable and ultimately impoverished.

January 30, 2003