FAITH-BASED IGNORANCE

The troubles we are having in Iraq are a direct result of the many "incorrect" behaviors engaged in by those who planned the war. While some supporters talk about "hindsight," the truth is that Pentagon planners were forewarned about our Iraqi behaviors about 4,500 years ago when Sun Tzu wrote his classic Art of War. This military classic is widely studied today in both military and corporate worlds throughout the world. Unfortunately, Sun Tzu's war lessons were apparently not studied by Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz.

The ignorance of our war leaders becomes apparent when we connect some of the Iraqi war dots with Sun Tzu's Art of War.

U.S.: We are expected to be "rebuilding" Iraq and putting down a difficult guerrilla war for years to come.

U.S.: While not conscripting, the Pentagon has called up civilians in the National Guard and extended their expected tours – causing lower morale and difficulties in recruiting.

U.S.: The Bush Administration spent $79 billion in 2003 and has requested an additional $87 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan for 2004. It is clear that these war- and nation-building efforts are ballooning a federal deficit which is expected to be $450 billion in 2004.

U.S.: The Pentagon was completely unprepared to administer a militarily defeated Iraq. Leadership was abruptly changed when General Franks and former General Garner departed early. Their successors have been incapable of filling the massive leadership vacuum created by the ousting of Saddam Hussein. Following World War II, we filled the Hitler vacuum with General Eisenhower, and the Tojo vacuum with General MacArthur, men of gigantic international stature. To fill the Hussein vacuum, we supplied pygmies, incapable of creating order, plans or consistent execution.

The Pentagon could have connected this administrative dot to the taking of the Philippines in the 1899-1902 period. There, also, the U.S. had a masterful battle plan but no administrative plan. We lost less than 400 lives conquering the Philippines, but in the ensuing three years we lost over 4,000 lives battling an insurgency manned by people armed with spears. While the jungles of the Philippines constituted far more difficult terrain than the deserts of Iraq, the Iraqis are armed with grenade launchers, mortars and AK-47s, not spears. And keep in mind that U.S. troops are still engaged in hunting down terrorists in the Philippines, more than a century after the conquest.

U.S.: The Rumsfeld doctrine of using overwhelming force saves lives, but runs up an enormous costs in force assets. Tanks, Humvees, helicopters, fighter planes, bombers, helmets, boots, and clothing all wear out. Bombs, bullets and other munitions are permanently expended. Much of our military resources are badly worn down and in need of repair and replacement. This enormous cost has been neither calculated nor publicized.

U.S.: Although Sun Tzu clearly espoused the use of captured enemy weaponry to reduce the costs of war, the Pentagon thinks more like a defense contractor. American four-man tank crews were issued only two M16 rifles because the tank's armor and weaponry were powerful. But with tanks now useless, tank crews have been ordered out of their tanks and onto foot patrol. With the common sense famed among foot soldiers, the tank crews picked up Iraqi AK-47s to augment their undersupply of M16s. According to most military experts, the Russian-made AK-47 is the superior weapon because it is more reliable in harsh climates and jams far less frequently. But when asked about this practice, a Pentagon spokesman snipped about it being contrary to regulations and said, "Only those who qualify with an AK-47 would be allowed to use it."

Faced with the choice of using an AK-47 or patrolling with a handgun, our soldiers have chosen the path of wisdom and are ignoring the Pentagon directive.

U.S.: Pentagon policy caused the disbanding and elimination of the Iraqi army, which caused widespread resentment and hostility – especially after most of the enemy soldiers had laid down their arms at our request and had refused to fight. For pay of about $60 a month per soldier, we could have had a ready-made army capable of protecting electrical generating plants, oil pipelines, ammunition dumps and other key assets which have since been devastated by sabotage and looting.Instead of scrambling to build a new police force, the Pentagon could have maintained and converted Saddam's police for purposes of preserving order – something they had been effectively and ruthlessly well-trained to do. Even police of questionable loyalty could have easily prevented the widespread looting performed by unruly civilian mobs. This action would have largely prevented the vicious cycle of looting, infrastructure deterioration and the resulting unrest caused by failing water and electrical systems.The unseemly cost in Bush's policy can easily be seen in cost comparisons. The cost of paying and provisioning a soldier in the Iraqi army is approximately $2,000. If we compute the cost of 250,000 American troops with the Iraqi military budget request of $51 Billion, it is easy to see that the cost of maintaining a single American soldier is over $200,000 – or 100 times the cost of maintaining a single Iraqi soldier.

Thus the single decision to disband the Iraqi army was catastrophic from both an economic and population control perspective.

Summing it all up, Sun Tzu preached "conquering the enemy and growing stronger." On the other hand, Messrs. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz have chosen the path of conquering the enemy and growing weaker.