Sun Tzu or Clausewitz On Iran?

Annie

Diamond Member
Nov 22, 2003
50,848
4,827
1,790
I hope we really do act soon enough to have a choice:


http://op-for.com/2006/05/sun_tzu_vs_iran.html



Sun Tzu vs. Iran
By Charlie

Tonight, I am in the mood for Chinese food. That being said, I’ll serve up some Sun-Tzu-inspired strategic commentary on the Iran crisis for the noble readership of the blog.

Says Sun on warfare:

3. Thus the highest form of generalship is to balk the enemy's plans; the next best is to prevent the junction of the enemy's forces; the next in order is to attack the enemy's army in the field; and the worst policy of all is to besiege walled cities.

What I take from this is that if your opponent can be “led” to accept your position without fighting, it is the “highest” form of generalship. This can be done by attacking his plans, or disrupting his strategy; Clausewitz, for an opposing view, says this:

"The acts we consider most important for the defeat of the enemy are . . --- Destruction of his army, if it is at all significant

--- Seizure of his capital if it is not only the center of administration but also that of social, professional, and political activity

--- Delivery of an effective blow against his principal ally if that ally is more powerful than he."

Bottom line: Sun says try to attack the plans first (asymmetrical warfare in today’s parlance), Carl says attack the forces and centers of gravity first (a more “symmetrical” or “conventional” way of waging war.)

Comes now Iran. The basic “beef” we’ve got with Iran is that they are supporting terrorism, rapidly developing nuclear weapons, contributing to the instability of the region through regime statements and support of insurgents in Iraq. All three of these issues are becoming more and more dangerous toward US interests in the region.

A General Clausewitz, if he could be resurrected form the grave and transported to the E-Ring of the Pentagon, would probably be looking at Iran’s deployment of military forces. He would consider the blue force commitment in Iraq, the enemy population centers, and devise courses of action for a military strike to solve the problem. In modern terms, Clausewitz might have looked approvingly on the initial invasion plan for Iraq, as a solution to removing Saddam from power.

A zombie General Tzu might consider the cultural, economic, and political spheres of influence in Iran –and the relation these pressures have on the ruling regime. He might next consider how to exploit gaps and apply pressure in order to accomplish the mission. If the mission was to convince Iran to abandon their nukes and stop supporting terrorism, disconnecting the regime that allows these activities from a population that might have other ideas about where their country should go –and replacing it with a more conciliatory one (or convincing the current one to see it our way) could be the choice he may recommend. Tzu might have nodded if he got to peruse the SOF plans for infiltrating into Afghanistan, teaming up with the Northern Alliance, and using US airpower to thwart the Taliban.

So how would America implement a “Tzu”-like strategy for dealing with the current Iran problem? How could we “balk his plans” best? Obviously, a full-on, Clausewitzian conventional, OIF-1-style attack would be a 100% solution for our three goals: terrorist support, nuke pursuit, and regime change, but it would be a HUGE drain on the nation, the military, and the economy. But we don’t always need a 100% solution to our problems –sometimes a 75% solution will work just fine. Using the three main problems I outlined, and –this is important- assuming regime irrationality, let’s take a look at how to sucker-punch the Iranian regime.

Politically, we should take the Kim Jong Il nuclear acquisition model Iran is currently pursuing and turn it on its head. There’s been lots of liberal talk about negotiating with Iran proper: Let’s extend the invitation to talk to the Iranians, but tie negotiations to 3 goals. Iran must stop uranium enrichment, stop supporting Hizbollah and Hamas, and cool it on the “Death to Israel” speeches –then we will gladly talk to them. By extending this offer (which Iran will certainly not comply with), the international diplomatic chess board will be upset –Iran will be exposed by having to stand by its activities, which even by UN standards aren’t up to snuff.

Economically, Iran is vulnerable. It possesses little ability to refine its top export: oil. According to the World Fact Book, Iran’s top exports are “petroleum 80%, chemical and petrochemical products, fruits and nuts, [and] carpets.” Its imports are “industrial raw materials and intermediate goods, capital goods, foodstuffs and other consumer goods, technical services, military supplies” and its main import providers are “Japan 18.4%, China 9.7%, Italy 6%, South Africa 5.8%, South Korea 5.4%, Taiwan 4.6%, Turkey 4.4%, Netherlands 4.1% (2004).” There is an ability to economically pressure Iran, its exports, its imports, and its import providers.

kurdistan.jpg

Finally, Politically (…by other means…) Iran’s regime is vulnerable. They sit on an ethnically diverse populace that while a majority is Shia Persian, there is a significant, and militant, minority of Kurds in the West, and Arabs in the south (who conveniently sit on a good chunk of the country’s oil fields.) In the vein of “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” perhaps we should start fomenting a Kurdish nationalist revolt across Iraq’s border –as Iran seems to be just as willing to foment a Shia revolt in Iraq. The Kurds would love weapons and money to fight “the man,” and as long as we make it clear that they can’t carry out their revolution in Turkey, it would cause significant problems for the image-conscious Iranian regime. In the south, significant across-the-border Information Operation campaigns targeting the Arabs in Iran should simply say: “look across the border, where the Iraqis are getting a cut of their oil wealth –how much are you getting from your regime?”

Fomenting domestic troubles in Iran, economically pressuring them, and giving them a way out (ala Libya) through negotiation and compromise (read: acquiescence to US demands) would be a dramatic change of course in US policy. It may be the course of action Sun Tzu would recommend, while Clausewitz may simply recommend launching the IBCMs.
May 17, 2006 04:14 PM
 
Clausewitz :D

clausewitz.jpg


I like him, he's great.

But both of them have bright strategy views, the best would be a combination of the 2 men's thoughts.
 
The Sun Tzu quote that comes to line in this situation is that delaying a war only benefits our enemies. I mean, imagine how puny WWII would have been if the Allies had marched into Germany the day they first violated the Treaty of Versailles and if China had fully mobilized against Japan when Imperial troops first set foot in Manchuria. Will our children look back on us and wonder why we didn't flatten Iran the first time they threatened the flattening of Israel?
 
Hobbit said:
The Sun Tzu quote that comes to line in this situation is that delaying a war only benefits our enemies. I mean, imagine how puny WWII would have been if the Allies had marched into Germany the day they first violated the Treaty of Versailles and if China had fully mobilized against Japan when Imperial troops first set foot in Manchuria. Will our children look back on us and wonder why we didn't flatten Iran the first time they threatened the flattening of Israel?

Probably not.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top