Blogger Sun Bin makes the connection today between the deteriorating US military position in Iraq, as exemplified by the Haditha massacre, and the classical Chinese strategist Sun Tzu.  He argues that the breakdown in discipline on the part of US troops in Haditha is indicative of the perils of long-term occupation, quoting excerpts from chapter 2 of Sun Tzu.  I would add these lines from the same chapter:

Thus, while we have heard of blundering swiftness in war, we have not yet seen a clever operation that was prolonged.

For there has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.

     Sun Tzu emphasizes the necessity of swift military action. When campaigns are drawn out, bad things happen.  Now, it should be said that the social-political context of war was quite different in Sun Tzu’s time than in our own.  Then, sovereigns with professional armies fought and, when one lost, rule was transferred from one elite to another.  The mass population was not united, as it can be now, by nationalist sentiments.   Today, post-war politics, especially if it involves "regime change" or "democratic transition" is very complex as it requires extensive participation and cooperation of the mass population.  Of course, in Iraq, significant portions of the domestic society have chosen not to cooperate with the new regime and civil war, fueled by weapons and communications equipment easily accessible on global markets, rages.

    As Sun Bin suggests, the US military got Sun Tzu only half right: they pressed "major military operations" very quickly and seized Baghdad faster than anyone expected.  Sun Tzu would have been pleased with this.  But the prolonged occupation has proved to be the US’s undoing.  Sun Bin suggests the best Sun Tzu-inspired strategy at this point for the US is to just get out of Iraq and let Iraqis sort things out.  I think that is consonant with the classic text.

     But another question comes to mind here as well.  Why has the US failed to establish order and effective governance in Iraq?  Sun Tzu would agree with those who point out that our failure to create a sense of political legitimacy is the key.  In Chapter one, he argues that "Tao,"  which Griffith translates as "moral influence."  Sun Tzu says:

By moral influence I mean that which causes the people to be in harmony with their leaders, so that they will accompany them in life and unto death without fear of mortal peril.

    The ancient Chinese commentator, Chang Yu adds:

When one treats people with benevolence, justice, and righteousness, and reposes confidence in them, the army will be united in mind and all will be happy to serve their leaders.  The Book of Changes says: ‘In happiness at overcoming difficulties, people forget the danger of death.’

    Bush succeeded, for a time, in creating a sense of moral purpose among Americans to support the war.  That moment is obviously gone now.  But the bigger failure is what has happened within Iraq.  Bush and Rumsfeld and company have been more concerned about maximizing US power and, within the US, executive branch power, than with doing the right thing in Iraqi eyes.  The turn toward torture and prisoner abuse was the beginning of the end.  The deep misunderstanding of Iraqi society and the sloppy implementation of every facet of post-war reconstruction have cost the US its "moral influence," its "tao."   If anything is clear from the Haditha horror, it is the daily immorality of American military power.

    Think of that Chang Yu quote with the Iraqi people in mind.  Substitute "Iraqi people" for "army," and we would have a general principle for post-war occupation: treat people with benevolence, justice, and righteousness, and repose confidence in them.  In failing to do that, the US has lost its Way in Iraq.  Sun Bin is right.  The only thing to do now is leave.