GIVING PAKISTAN CREDIT (CARDS)

   MY last few installments have dealt with issue of Pakistan, and how the USA should deal with that country.  There is a growing inclination towards terminating aid to the country, because it is not as strong an ally as some would want.  This was are the George Bush principle, namely other countries are either “with us or against us.”  I offer my own analysis on the question. 

    An alliance, no matter how weak it seems, should be maintained.  A really long time ago a Chinese military writer, Sun Tzu, wrote a book called “The Art of War.”  The book remains popular today.  One of the principles was the importance of deception.  “When you are far, convince the enemy that you are near…” etc.  Another example was “When you are strong, convince the enemy that you are weak.”  An officially weak ally can be quite misleading to the enemy.  He (the enemy) should be confused as to how to act towards this ally.  Should he attack it?  If so then he may well cause it, in reaction, to make the weak alliance stronger.  Should he leave it alone, as he may expect the alliance to fall apart on its own?  This may give the ally an opportunity to function in relative peace, helping the alliance at little cost. 

    A divided enemy is easier to defeat.  If the terrorists can not decide their own policy towards Pakistan, then they may become paralyzed, at least to a degree, by strategic indecision.  For these reasons alone, the alliance, and the aid, should continue. 

   There is another factor.  The USA is not overwhelmingly popular in that part of the world.  Terrorist propaganda often attacks allies as slavish American puppets.  The more independent an ally appears, the less resistance can be expected from the local tribesman.  Even if the ally, because of the aid received, seems to be only a hired mercenary, the arrangement may well be considered manly and honorable, rather than simply as servant and master. 

   The hiring of allies is how a rich and soft nation should rationally wage war.  That is, it should bleed dollars rather than American lives.  The US should pay to poor to die for the interests of the rich(er).  

    It is, of course, possible that the current administration is aware of these factors, and is playing the great game in a way that Sun Tzu would approve.  But this is probably only a coincidence.  It is difficult to attribute wisdom, planning or patriotism to the current resident of the White House.  What is really important is that they are doing things in a way to please me. 

Comments

[Bonifacius]

Hi, Vin,
Do you think that George Bush may have been the sort of geopolitical genius Sun Tzu would praise -- one who cultivates the image of buffoonery in the eyes of the media while implementing shrewd policies? History (or at least legend) is full of examples of heroes who feigned madness and imbecility while prosecuting war plans -- the original Brutus (whose name is Latin for "a bruet, thick-headed") who expelled the Tarquins from Rome, Hamlet, etc. Thanks!

[VINCENT P LEWIS]

Thank you for responding. I have felt this is the case with a number of the political and and cultural elites. They may enjoy being mis-read by the common man. I was convinced that this was true for Clinton. I am not so certain re Bush. There is a good probability. God bless.

P.S. Try visiting WildeandTwain.blogspot.com