In yesterdays address to the nation on CNN News (December 20, 2006) President Bush mentioned that he was reading up on how history portrayed President Washington. Leading up to this reply President Bush had been asked a question regarding his legacy and this war with Iraq . President Bush remarked that people were trying to write his history while he was still in office instead of waiting for the end results of his actions or lack thereof. President Bush went on to state that he felt he had done a fair and just job thus far, but believed that his legacy may take years to be completely revealed. Later, Wolf Blitzer (CNN News, The Situation Room segment, December 20, 2006) stated that the media was merely writing the first draft of what history may ultimately rewrite about George W. Bush’s presidency.

 

Perhaps instead of reading about George Washington President Bush might gain more insight at this juncture in his presidency by reading the teachings of General Sun Tzu who coined the Rule of Ten to One, Rule of Five to One, Rule of Doubling, the Rule of When to Withdraw, and the Rule of Equal Matching. General Tzu was very forward thinking for his time, but his teachings are still applicable in modern warfare. (c.a. 600 B.C.E.) In addition to his Rules of War, General Tzu believed that leaders needed to have complete and comprehensive discussions and sound plans prior to entering into any battle or war which is one thing that appears to be missing from the Bush plan. (Wren, 2005, p. 14)

 

General Tzu’s Rule of Ten to One is an offensive war strategy that states that when ones forces are ten greater than the enemy you should surround them. (Wren, 2005, p. 14) When the United States invaded Iraq we were far from ten to one because Rumsfeld thought leaner forces might prevail. Colon Powell tried in earnest to point out the error in this line of logic to no avail. According to the web site www.globalsecurity.org as of August 3, 2006 American troop levels were 133,000. In retrospect, even with such small troop numbers, had the US troops been stationed on the border of Iraq instead of deployed into Baghdad we may have been able to garner and maintain control instead of forcing the people of Iraq into a civil war.

 

The Rule of Five to One according to General Tzu (Wren, 2005, p. 14) means that when our troop levels exceed enemy forces by five to each of their one we can attack. With insurgent attacks growing exponentially each day we are not five troops per the Iraqi’s one, but instead at diminishing numbers that substantially lower the odds as each day comes to a close. Tallies according to Glenn Kutler of Newsweek for American war casualties since this war began are at 25,000 leaving the US at troops of approximately 108,000. President Bush is considering adding 40,000 more troops and beefing up the Army and Marines, but is uncertain on just how to do so. Think about that for a moment if you will. (draft?) It is my honest belief (and the belief of Generals on the ground in Iraq ) that adding 40,000 more troops will not increase our ability to win, so why do it?

 

The Rule of Doubling states that (Wren, 2005, p. 14) double the number of enemy troops they can divide them, but is not enough to conquer. It is my understanding based on research that the United States does not have double the number of troops vs the number of insurgents and thus is unable to divide or move forward. However, the people of Iraq have somewhat divided themselves along sectarian lines as they continue to fight over turf while we remain at a standstill as far as effectuating any lasting changes for them. How much more money and bloodshed will it take for our leaders to determine that this war is not winnable in a military context?

 

General Tzu (Wren, 2005, p.14) states that one can engage the enemy if your troop level if equal to that of the enemy. However, your ability to win may be hampered by such low troop numbers and leaders should take this into consideration prior to entering into war. Why didn’t the Bush Administration do so? Why do they continue to believe against all intelligent data that this situation will change and they can still win? The answer is simple, they are in denial! President Bush and his administration are at a dangerous crossroads.

 

If ones troop numbers are less than those of the troops you oppose according to the teachings of General Tzu (Wren, 2005, p. 14) you should consider withdrawing or eluding the enemy. If we take the 108,000 troops we already have there and add the 40,000 that President Bush hopes to we are still at lower numbers than needed to possibly win this war. Donald Rumsfeld’s idea that this war in Iraq could be won on the short and cheap was totally flawed if one believes what General Tzu says and what we have witnessed since embarking on this ill thought out journey. Consideration at this time should not hinge on sending in more troops, but on how best we can bring our troops home and out of harms way.

 

Iraq would be best served by allowing segmentation of borders along sectarian lines as the Kurds have done on the northern border with Kurdistan . Each area could govern itself and not have to answer to a central government in Baghdad . Each area could determine if they want to be democratic, socialistic, or communist because it is a decision that should be made by and of the people of Iraq and not one forced upon them by the powers of the United States .

 

How this information will impact decisions of leaders in America is anyone’s guess.  It is my hope that if President Bush does not heed the warning of the people of the United States as stated loud and clear in the midterm elections this past November and bring our troops home that congress act to immediately begin impeachment proceeding for him and Vice-president Cheney.

 

References

 

Wren, Daniel A. (2005) The History of Management Thought. (fifth edition) Wiley and Sons

Kutler, Glenn (December 11, 2006) 25,000 Casualties. Newsweek article from http://msnbc.com