In a nutshell, I am comparing key passages from Sun Tzu's The Art of War with the Bush administration's prosecution of the war in Iraq.

I think I am safe in saying that the key players of the Bush administration responsible for the Iraq War have either not read The Art of War or simply did not understand it, or, even worse, chose not to follow the basic concepts presented therein.

I will now elucidate further.

Allow me a lengthy quote from Chapter 3: "In general, the method for employing the military is this: Preserving the [enemy's] state capital is best, destroying their state capital second-best. Preserving their army is best, destroying their army is second-best." And so on for their battalions, companies, and squads. "For this reason attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

The first of many mistakes that the Coalition Provisional Authority under Paul Bremer did upon setting up shop in the Green Zone in Baghdad was dissolve the Iraqi army, leaving the country with no force capable of providing for security or keeping the peace. The army was destroyed right down to the last squad. Bremer claimed he was following the orders of the White House, but was not independently wise enough to see the folly himself, or he might have mitigated the damage by preserving the army, in part or in whole, against the day when Iraq would need to stand on its own two feet.

This is a tactical blunder. The strategic blunder to end all Iraq blunders is in the next paragraph: "The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities."

What Sun Tzu is saying is that the best victory does not involve warfare or armies; it involves strategy leading to victory without firing a shot. Keep the enemy from realizing their goals and isolate them from their alliances. If those fail, fight their army. And lastly, attack their civilian population centers. The Bush administration, of course, BEGAN by attacking Iraq's population centers with their much-hyped and greatly overrated "shock and awe" show. No strategy—just bad tactics.

Sun Tzu even provided a handy formula for those conceptually impaired: "In general, the strategy for employing the military is this: If your strength is ten times theirs, surround them; if five, then attack them; if double, then divide your forces. If you are equal in strength to the enemy, you can engage him. If fewer, you can circumvent him. If outmatched, you can avoid him."

In case you didn't recognize the real-world example of that first sentence, when you enjoy vast numerical superiority, you surround the enemy. That is called "containment," and has worked successfully in the past. It is not the fastest method leading to victory, but it works. UN sanctions fall into this category. Best of all, it doesn't call for actually waging war on a military level. Because, remember: SUBJUGATING THE ENEMY'S ARMY WITHOUT FIGHTING IS THE TRUE PINNACLE OF EXCELLENCE.

Chapter 3 concludes thus:

"There are five factors from which victory can be known:

One who knows when he can fight, and when he cannot fight, will be victorious.

One who recognizes how to employ large and small numbers will be victorious.

One whose upper and lower ranks have the same desires will be victorious.

One who, fully prepared, awaits the unprepared, will be victorious.

One whose general is capable and not interfered with by the ruler will be victorious."

It could be argued that the Bush administration fails them all, but certainly the Bush administration obviously fails that last one. (For example, there's something about Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's pronouncement that you don't go to war with the army you want, you go to war with the army you have that sounds suspiciously like the opposite of the fourth statement above.)

And in summary, Chapter 3 paints a bleak picture of our prospects in Iraq.

Thus it is said that one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One how does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy nor himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement.

It is well known that our intelligence on Iraq was uselss, so we most certainly did not know the enemy. From the numerous serious strategic and tactical blunders the Bush administration have committed in Iraq ro date, it is a good bet that they do not "know themselves" to any great extent. It is difficult to see how this adventure in Iraq will have any outcome that is not disastrous for the United States. But it is amazing, is it not, that it looks like someone in the Bush administration read The Art of War and step by step did the exact opposite of what the book said?