I was recently reading Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", written long ago and still recognized as the quintessential manual on leadership and war by leaders and generals from nearly every nation. It is interesting to read it now in the context of the Iraq war, if only to see that the Bush administration has thoroughly ignored every piece of wisdom in it. I could go on for days, but I will just say that I wish I was not surprised.

As an example, read the following excerpt from Chapter 2, entitled "Doing Battle", while keeping current event in mind. Especially the final line, keeping in mind how the Prentender skipped out on his own military service:

When doing battle, seek a quick victory.

A protracted battle will blunt weapons and dampen ardor.

If troops lay siege to a walled city, their strength will be exhausted.

If the army is exposed to a prolonged campaign, the nation's resources will not suffice.

When weapons are blunted, and ardor dampened, strength exhausted, and resources depleted, the neighboring rulers will take advantage of these complications.

Then even the wisest of counsels would not be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

Therefore, I have heard of military campaigns that were clumsy but swift, but I have never seen military campaigns that were skilled but protracted.

No nation has ever benefited from protracted warfare.

Therefore, if one is not fully cognizant of the dangers inherent in doing battle, one cannot fully know the benefits of doing battle.

Just a quick question, based upon Dick Cheney's response to Arlen Specter's subpoenas for telecom executives to testify about the warrantless spying program.

The excerpt below is from the Yahoo! news story on the topic:

He said Cheney had asked Republicans to oppose "any ... hearing, even a closed one" and advised lawmakers that the companies were "not to provide any information to the committee as they were prohibited from disclosing classified information."

So, my question is, if these executives are "prohibited from disclosing classified information", that logically means that they are in possession of "classified information", right? Now, if the US Justice Department cannot get security clearances for it's employees to investigate the matter, I'm wondering how these telecom execs got those clearances to lawfully possess "classified information".

If I was a congressman or Senator, I would certainly be asking how it was that these execs came to possess this information in the first place, and I would also want to see their security clearances and their applications for said clearances.

But, nobody seems to have picked up on this aspect of the story.

I wouldn't put it past someone with Lay's money, access to those in power, and obvious lack of personal ethics or morals to fake this "death". Will they make the body avaiable for viewing? Will it be a public funeral, or limited only to those who would have an interest in perpetuating this type of fraud?

Geez, I guess Salon should thank Joe Liberman profusely. After all, what the hell else would Salon have put on the site for the past ten days if not for Joe? The War Room blog is full of Joe-ness, and the N&P and now Opinion are also, surprise, all about Joe. Dude, WTF? Is NOTHING else happening in the world of interest today?

I'm sick of Joe, I'm sick of this story, and I am rapidly becoming sick of Salon and it's infinitesimal focus on only a few stories of moderate interest.

BLAH BLAH BLAH.

This one sentence shows to what extent have we not only failed to "win the hearts and minds" of Iraqis, but have also lost those of our fighting men and women. The sentence:

A frustrated team leader told me, "Thirty years from now, when historians are trying to figure out how we lost this war, they'll look to the MiTT program."

A Marine team leader said. A Marine. The most gung-ho of the gung-ho; living the experience everyday, and a team leader to boot has given up hope on this war. His statement reveals he is resigned to defeat and historians will look to the program he is currently working in as the cause of that failure.

It's over. Unfortunately, Bush & Co. won't believe that until we have another Saigon-like evacuation.

King,

One question. Your reaction to getting numerous letters complaining that you wasted an entire column on steroids is to waste ANOTHER column on the same subject?

I think G.W.Bush has an opening you could do a heckuva job in.

Tell us something we didn't already know

Talking about the carbon footprint of a non-stop flight from Denver to London, Miss Mieszkowski says:

By that measure, flying direct from Denver to London and back puts about 3,600 pounds of CO2 into the atmosphere, equivalent to driving a Toyota Prius hybrid 10,000 miles.

I checked the distance from Denver to London. It is 4670 miles. Double that for a round-trip flight, and you get 9340 miles, or roughly equivalent to the 10,000 of driving a Prius.

So, if the flight and driving a Prius are roughly equivalent, how is flying any worse than driving, carbon-wise?

And, I'm not sure I understand the rationale behind focusing on airline flights for carbon emission problems. By Miss Mieszkowski's own admission, flights account for only 3.5% of the carbon emissions in the US, 1.5% worldwide. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that addressing 3.5% of the problem, even if completely eliminated, is worth, oh, about 3.5% of a solution.

Twinkie,

I live in Phoenix, AZ. Out here, "dude" is androgynous and applied to members of either gender equally.

But, it doesn't matter, as it appears someone took offense to my constructive criticism and deleted the post you referred to.