Sun Tzu and the Cost of War

4 October 2014
What if military strategy was timeless?
Sun Tzu was a Chinese military general, strategist and philosopher, and is credited to have written The
Art of War, a seminal treatise on managing conflict and achieving victory in the battlefield. It is
uncertain when he actually lived, but some traditional historians date his lifetime to 544496 BC.
The Art of War discusses strategy within the wider context of public administration, politics and
planning. Organized in thirteen chapters, the text outlines theories of battle, but also advocates
diplomacy and cultivating relationships with other nations as essential to the health of a state. For
centuries, it has been regarded as the definite reading for military strategists, enthusiasts and warriors
of all types.
Sun Tzus work remains highly influential to this day. An internet search with his name produces over 10
million hits; in recent years there have been several best-selling translations and books applying the
strategies to different fields, including negotiation, leadership and business.
So influential in fact that certain authors claim Chinas leaders follow a modern adaptation of his
principles as they seek to transform their country into a world superpower in the 21
st
century. Exactly at
a time when the Western Establishment seems to be very busy brushing them aside.
Sun Tzu in Action
Sun Tzu observed, analyzed and distilled what works and what doesnt at war, and eventually developed
an approach which transcended the battlefield. He emphasized the need to have a strategy planned well
in advance of any campaign based on a detailed assessment of both adversaries strengths and
weaknesses: If you know the enemy and know yourself you need not fear the results of a hundred
battles.
One particularly insightful observation is that open warfare should only be pursued as a last resort. In
fact, Sun Tzu regarded winning without fighting as the pinnacle of military achievement. However, when
there was no other choice, then the fighting should be as swift as possible: There is no instance of a
nation benefitting from prolonged warfare. That applies to the loser of course but also the victor, which
is forced to expend substantial resources and in the end may not get much spoils to show for it, while
becoming vulnerable to other attacks.
Sun Tzu also warned us against relying too much on technological superiority: Even the finest sword
plunged into salt water will eventually rust. Such superiority may win battles but not necessarily the
war. And it is very costly.
His principles remain relevant to this day not only because they were organized during a time of
substantial human conflict in an advanced civilization, but they are deeply rooted in natural law. Even
the mighty lion chooses its prey carefully, aiming for the weakest of the bunch in the most economical
way possible.
The Cost of War
Stephen Daggett, Specialist in Defense Policy and Budgets at the Congressional Research Service
(considered to be the Congress think tank), authored a report in June 2010 outlining the cost of all the
major wars the US has been involved in. His estimates, as well as a recent update on the cost of all the
Post 9/11 wars by Professor Neta C. Crawford at Boston University, are presented in the following table:
Major US War Period Cost(a)
American Revolution 1775-83 2.4
War of 1812 1812-15 1.5
Mexican War 1846-49 2.4
Civil War(b) 1861-65 79.7
Spanish American War 1898-99 9.0
World War I 1917-21 334
World War II 1941-45 4,104
Korea 1950-53 341
Vietnam 1965-75 738
Persian Gulf War 1990-91 102
Post 9/11(c) 2001- 4,375

Source: Congressional Research Service (June 2010), Boston University (June 2014).
(a) Constant 2011 dollars, except for Post 9/11 which is in current dollars.
(b) Union and Confederacy added together.
(c) Includes $1 trillion in future obligations for care of Veterans through 2054.
One important fact stands out from this table. Not only are the Post 9/11 entanglements the longest of
any war where the US was involved in, they are also the most expensive even more than World War II,
when the US was fighting on two major fronts against heavily industrialized powers. Rather than
achieving victory quickly as advocated by Sun Tzu, the US has been involved in very costly wars for well
over a decade now.
When it comes to ensuring global security it can get lonely at the top. None of the traditional US allies
have the military capabilities and even the ambition to project power at the same level. As an example,
the US has 19 commissioned aircraft carriers, followed by France at #2 with only four. Russia and China
only have one each.
These days the US political establishment actively endorses this militaristic approach to governing world
affairs. This might be understandable as the geopolitical landscape has become incredibly complex and
uncertain since 9/11. However, after years of waging war, conflict seems to be expanding as opposed to
receding, particularly in the all-important Middle East where openly anti-Western radical groups are
conquering large territories. As such, a complete US disentanglement over the foreseeable future looks
increasingly less likely each day.
Sun Tzu had something to say about this: Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while
defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win. Seen in this light, has the Post 9/11 strategy
made the US a victorious warrior?
While all of this is taking place, the US ideological foes can afford the luxury of sitting back and
employing a more measured approach: To fight and conquer in all our battles is not supreme
excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. Indeed,
nothing breaks morale more than the prospect of never ending foreign wars.
Meanwhile, the debts keep piling up. The Pentagons continued ability to project power might become
increasingly dependent not on its brave soldiers but on its creditors. Sun Tzu would agree.