Sun Tsu

With the recent posts about the prospects of war in the Middle East, comes this video about the Art of War.

The video was taken down.



An interesting part was about the Battle of Gettysburg, when Lee decided to ignore one of the fundamental doctrines of war that says do not attack high ground, but seek another way. General Longstreet, a lieutenant of Lee's wanted to go around the high ground and march towards Washington, but Lee refused. This is considered to be Lee's greatest mistake. It may have cost the war. On the other hand, if he had done what Longstreet wanted, it may have won the war for him.  Thus does history turn on such events.

With respect to Israel and the Middle East, what would be the best way forward? To attack the nuclear sites or not? There's nothing comparable to a high ground, but there is an objective--- which is to remove a threat to Israel.   Israel's goal is to continue to exist.  What will Israel do?

Meanwhile, Israel sees a growing gap between themselves and Washington, so they have a very narrow range of options, lest they isolate themselves even further. But this may not be all that it appears to be. You can take things at face value, and this may be just a lot of smoke.  The words coming from potential adversaries leads me to believe that they may believe that they can intimidate Israel into passivity.  But none of this may be as it appears.  Israel does not bluff, that is not their history.  If their history is any guide, they will attack, they cannot afford to fail to do this.

Israel can succeed, but the blowback is what could be the bigger issue.  What will Iran do to retaliate, and what will the response be to that and so forth?  The prospect of that is what the Iranians and their allies have been using for a propaganda advantage, and it may be effective in thwarting an attack, but for how long?  It doesn't change the situation any, so it can only influence the timing of what must occur eventually.  This is going to be resolved one way or another.

Another thing to consider is the US election for president.  Israel may prefer Romney, and could angle for that result.  The key is whether an attack helps Romney or it helps Obama.  If things go well, it helps Obama now.  If it goes poorly, it is hard to say if it helps Romney or Obama.  It all depends on how Obama looks in how he responds to events.  If he looks ineffective, it hurts him.  If he looks wise and statesmanslike, it helps his prospects for re-election.  At the moment, it looks like Obama is a bit weak and is being taken advantage of by adversaries.  The adversarial element may want a weaker leader that they can take advantage of.

Obama's main weakness is that he is too political.  He only does things to help himself politically.  He will cater to the weaknesses of his own people and not ask them for their support in order to accomplish a difficult, but necessary mission.  It is also risky, because it can go badly and even spiral into a disastrous war. The risk of war works to his advantage, though.

From the political point of view, Obama can stoke fears of a rash Romney who may drag the US into yet another unpopular war.  The advantage is with Obama here, but he could lose that advantage, because the appearance of weakness cannot ever look good.  Romney could remind people that history has shown that even the mere appearance of weakness invites aggression.  It happened with the Empire of Japan at Pearl Harbor.  The Japanese were asked after the war why they attacked us and the reply was that they thought we wouldn't fight.  It is a fine line to walk between rashness and prudence.  A little too much on either side of the line has its risks.  One has to appear strong, but not rash.  Prudent, but not weak.  It is a very fine line.

In the end, one must define success by the attainment of objectives.  Israel's objective is to continue to exist.  Not so easy when you are surrounded by enemies.