Flunking the Art of War

I knew that the Cheney admin. had insulted (perhaps inadvertently) Chinese President Hu during the recent visit to Washington D.C. (allowing the reporter from The Epoch Times into the press area, national anthem mixup, refusal of State Visit, etc.)…but I didn’t realize that Hu insulted the Neo-Jacobins with a small gift: a book!

First of all, even admirers of the person who is currently acting as the Prez-Dent of the USA, (the alcoholic drug addict with learning disabilities who deserted his unit during a time of war), would never accuse Shrub of being intellectually curious or even terribly interested in things. So, Hu’s gift of a book was somewhat akin, in my opinion, to giving a bar of soap to an unwashed individual.

But, according to a piece written by John Walsh (please see URL, below), the gift was a not-so subtle rip on the Neo-Jacobin’s quagmire in Iraq!


[quote]"Master Sun said: The art of warfare is this:

“In joining battle, seek the quick victory. If battle is protracted, your weapons will be blunted and your troops demoralized. If you lay siege to a walled city, you exhaust your strength. If your armies are kept in the field for a long time, your national reserves will not suffice. Where you have blunted your weapons, demoralized your troops, exhausted your strength and depleted all available resources, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of your adversity to strike. And even with the wisest of counsel, you will not be able to turn the ensuing consequences to the good. There never has been a state that has benefited from an extended war.” [/quote]

Nice post serious_fun.

Shortly after President Hu’s visit this conversation took place in the Oval Office.

“What’s the president of China’s name again? I keep forgetting.”


“The president of China.”


“The president of China dammit, Dick. What’s wrong with you? Can’t you hear anymore?”


“Aw, forget it. Anyway who is this guy Sun Tizzu? I read a few pages in this book President What’s His Name gave me and he seems like a dangerous character. He seems to know too much about the wrong things.”

“I’ll look into it, Mr. President.”

“In the meantime maybe we should put him on the no-fly list until we have a chance to check him out.”

“Consider it done, Mr. President.”

“Oh, so now you can hear me, Dick. You were just pulling my chain earlier about the President’s name, right? Ha! I’ll get you back for that!”

Actually, the more that I think about it the more I realize the wisdom of troop levels proposed by Rumsfeld. Had we put 500,000 troops in Iraq, we may have needed a draft. Had we had the draft, we would have been under enormous pressure to get out ala Vietnam. We are not facing those same protests though we have the low ratings and popularity about the wisdom of the war. Thank God that this time, the administration took that into account and kept us where we could be for the long term without being susceptible to the American weakness for quick results.

Yeah, and oil revenues financed the whole thing, too!

Whoever said that? It was supposed to finance reconstruction and to a large extent that is happening.

Whoever said that? It was supposed to finance reconstruction and to a large extent that is happening.[/quote]

fred smith is correct re: the original Neo-Jacobin assertion about oil revenues.

[quote]Paul Wolfowitz tells the U.S. House Budget Committee that oil exports would pay for the reconstruction of post-invasion Iraq. “It’s got already, I believe, on the order of $15 billion to $20 billion a year in oil exports, which can finally – might finally be turned to a good use instead of building Saddam’s palaces,” he testifies. “It has one of the most valuable undeveloped sources of natural resources in the world. And let me emphasize, if we liberate Iraq those resources will belong to the Iraqi people, that they will be able to develop them and borrow against them.”[/quote]February 27, 2003

the problems, of course, are that:

  1. money is being siphoned (oil industry pun intended) by the Neo-Jacobins and thier cronies
  2. the Iraqi oil pipelines are still producing less than pre-invasion levels
  3. international firms are hesitant to work in a region racked by civil war

[quote]No U.S. majors have signed deals in Iraq following the invasion though Chevron and others that previously operated in Iraq are providing technical assistance, bringing Iraqi oil workers to the United States and paying for their training, according to Karen Matusic, a spokeswoman with the American Petroleum Institute.

‘U.S. companies are waiting for a consistent legitimate government in place that protects foreign investment and provides security,’ she told UPI. ‘It`s too soon to be seeing people going in and signing deals.’[/quote]