Know your Enemy

[hist2004]

By LtCol Oliver L. North

June 24, 2004

Washington, D.C. - The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

In my 22 years as an officer of Marines - from Annapolis to The Basic School to the Naval War College - similar advice was drilled into us: to know your enemy. It's sound guidance, pretty basic stuff, really. Yet there are apparently those in our government - people with many years of experience - supposedly learned statesmen, according to their bios and press reports - who somehow don't get it.

Our present enemy, properly identified by President George W. Bush and his National Security team, is the radical Islamic jihadist terror movement. Our enemy is not limited to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, though they certainly fit the bill. Radical Islamic jihadist terrorists, principally financed by Saudi petro-dollars, also carry out their killing under the rubric of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Ansar al-Islam, and dozens of other names. And though they use different monikers, they all have a common goal: to kill as many Americans, Christians and Jews as they can, using whatever tools they have at their disposal.

While these barbaric groups prefer mass killings and spectacular events like 9-11, they are more than willing to settle for individual atrocities: a suicide bus-bomber in Israel or the gruesome beheading of a single hostage. They know they can count on the Internet, Arabic-language broadcast media, of which al Jazerra is but one, and even Western press outlets to help them spread fear.

These enemies are utterly ruthless, and indescribably brutal. Though the leaders of these groups do all they can to avoid death or capture, their "foot soldiers" are not only willing to die for their cause - they want to die. And unlike our adversaries of the past, this enemy is not motivated by goals that inspired armies of old: land, treasure, strategic waterways, or natural resources. Today's enemy is instead goaded by a twisted belief that they have a holy mission to advance their religion and drive Western influence - meaning Judeo-Christian values - from any Islamic territory.

The President and his team understand this enemy. Some Democrats, like Senators Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman do as well. Unfortunately, others who manage to command much more media attention, apparently believe that President Bush and his generals are the enemy. And their attacks on the President over these past few weeks have proved Sun Tzu's admonition, that if you don't know who your enemy really is, "for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat."

The brutal beheading of American Paul Johnson is a tragic, sanguinary example of such a defeat. In the original statement issued by Paul Johnson's captors, they referred to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and said Johnson would be treated the same way that prisoners there were treated. The prison issue has inflamed the Arab world because too many of our political and media elites have treated the shameful actions of a few soldiers in an Iraqi prison as though it was the modern equivalent of the My Lai massacre. The blood of Paul Johnson is on their hands.

This week President George W. Bush met with Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy in the Oval Office. Hours earlier, a 33 year-old South Korean, Kim Sun-il, an Arabic translator working in Iraq, was brutally beheaded by terrorists. The terrorists took this man hostage and threatened to kill him in an effort to influence the South Korean government to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The brutal beheading came just days after the beheading of Paul Johnson and just six weeks after the beheading of Nick Berg.

Surely the sophisticated scribes of the vaunted White House press corps would want to know the President's reaction to the brutal beheading of Kim Sun-il and ask what more he can do to win this war and protect American citizens at home and abroad. But when the opportunity arose to ask about the most recent atrocity, the first question from an American reporter was to inquire of the "perception" that torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was authorized by the Bush administration. This inquiring whiz also wanted to know if the President thought it would be wise to have an independent commission look into the matter.

The media wants to know, because Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill are calling for exactly that. This week House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her brethren held a news conference to demand that a Select Committee of the Congress be established to investigate abuses, not just at Abu Ghraib prison, but at any prison in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

They are convinced that the men and women of America's military are the bad guys. Senator Teddy Kennedy, an expert in scandals and water torture, routinely refers to abuses at Abu Ghraib as "torture" and "sadistic abuses." Former Vice President Al Gore routinely accuses the President of lying and setting the "moral climate for abuses" by our Armed Forces. Regrettably, they have spent far less time denouncing murderous terrorists, calling Islamic clerics to speak out against such behavior, or even issuing press releases condemning terror.

The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration - not the terrorists - as the enemy, we are in trouble.

Regards,
Hist2004

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I take it that Ollie North is not a registered Democrat. :roll:

[100_Percent_HOOAH]

I can't wait for elections to be over so we can focus on the war on terror instead of mud slinging and pointless propaganda. Our priorities are in the wrong places right now, in my personal opinion. We are at war and this country needs to be united in order for us to attain victory and it seems like we are more divided now than ever.

[Trigger]

I take it that Ollie North is not a registered Democrat. :roll:
Brilliant deduction.
Would you like to add anything of relevance to the article other than to prejudge the author?

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Brilliant deduction.
Would you like to add anything of relevance to the article other than to prejudge the author?
No not at the moment, maybe another time.

[Tane Angle]

Note: This isn't directed at hist2004, who I do respect, or any others. It's sort of not really directed anywhere, just venting.

As part of Iran-Contra, the good Colonel really knows something about knowing one's enemy, doesn't he? I respect his rank and I'm sure he and others meant well, but those operations were combinations of naivety, negligence, lunacy, treason, and sheer idiocy. Way to honor your oath.

Of course, the article isn't really about knowing one's enemy. It doesn't discuss their operating methods, their strengths and weaknesses, or the tools and methods needed to fight them. He is correct that they are utterly ruthless. He is incorrect, however, when it comes to the death issue. Their tactics emphasize survivabilty whenever possible (an effecient method), so that we are now looking veteran terrorists who have had time to refine their tactics. The most dangerous groups are those designed for survival. Some terrorist groups and militias are, some aren't.

But this article isn't really about terrorists, now is it? It's about politics, is it not? It's a dig at political competitors.

I don't care for Al Gore or most other politicians, but this:


The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration - not the terrorists - as the enemy, we are in trouble.
Jeez, you really believe that? That if we all join hands and sing in the street that terrorism will just go away? Is that what we've been doing wrong? Fighting terrorism and politics are not mutually exclusive, please don't use hostage's deaths for political motives. In fact, are you sure that you are in a position to be saying their names?

And just because I'm already pissed off, let's take a look at the fact that Sun Tzu wasn't a warrior, he was an advisor, a tactician, a strategist. He was like the War Colleges. Also, it's movements. Know your enemy. The key to making more progress may lie in using the differences between the movements.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, I am less than impressed by Colonel North. Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...

[n4292936]

I just can't get enough of good Ol Ollie. When Im done watching my favourite show in the world "Cops" I turn to Fox News and watch his reporting cause it's like my favourite show just got a half hour extension.

[hist2004]

Tane Angle-

No worries, I find an interesting article and let the forum members decide,
and yes Col. North's history should be taken into account.

Regards & Thanks,
Hist2004

[Bayonet]

OMG.......Sun Tzu isn't a warrior......He is a great strategist and tactician....

[Trigger]

Of course, the article isn't really about knowing one's enemy. It doesn't discuss their operating methods, their strengths and weaknesses, or the tools and methods needed to fight them. He is correct that they are utterly ruthless. He is incorrect, however, when it comes to the death issue. Their tactics emphasize survivabilty whenever possible (an effecient method), so that we are now looking veteran terrorists who have had time to refine their tactics. The most dangerous groups are those designed for survival. Some terrorist groups and militias are, some aren't.

But this article isn't really about terrorists, now is it? It's about politics, is it not? It's a dig at political competitors.

I don't care for Al Gore or most other politicians, but this:


The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration - not the terrorists - as the enemy, we are in trouble.
Jeez, you really believe that? That if we all join hands and sing in the street that terrorism will just go away? Is that what we've been doing wrong? Fighting terrorism and politics are not mutually exclusive, please don't use hostage's deaths for political motives. In fact, are you sure that you are in a position to be saying their names?

And just because I'm already pissed off, let's take a look at the fact that Sun Tzu wasn't a warrior, he was an advisor, a tactician, a strategist. He was like the War Colleges. Also, it's movements. Know your enemy. The key to making more progress may lie in using the differences between the movements.

In case anyone hadn't noticed, I am less than impressed by Colonel North. Have a good one all, and just some thoughts...
I think there is more than one enemy being discussed.
One of the enemies is the media which asks asinine questions in order to deflect the attention away from the real problems and shift blame to Bush. So yes, he does describe their tactics. And yes, they are aiding the other enemy (AQ) when they do this. And so are the senators named in the article.
It doesn't matter if Sun Tzu was a warrior or an advisor or a milkman. I'm sure you have your reasons for disliking Ollie North, but that doesn't disqualify his statements.
2+2 still equals 4 no matter who writes the answer on the blackboard.

[Tane Angle]

Trigger, buddy, if the media and Senators are helping AQ, charge them with treason. If they haven't done anything warranting such charges, then maybe Colonel North should tone down his rhetoric.

And it does matter what Sun Tzu was. As does Colonel North's history. He puts off a persona of respectability and credibility, both of which, in my humble opinion, he is short on. If he's such an expert on warfare, he should at least get the job of the expert on warfare right. He uses hostages' names and deaths for political gain. Does he really think that any Senators are cheering when we lose hostages? Because in North's day, a job well done meant inadvertenly encouraging further hostage takings.

North isn't in a position to call others treasonous. Iran-Contra was treason. I don't care that he was directed to do it, he should have refused. In the 80s, there wasn't any shortage of military personnel throwing away their careers because they wanted to do what was right. It wouldn't have been entirely strange for North to trade his career for the good of American citizens.

The two political sides don't have to like one another, but there's no need for hate either. Maybe that's the difference between the slums of the Middle East and politics: In the Middle East, people get past hate because they know it is in their best interests to work with those they despise. In Washington, both parties are blinded by their hate and don't really accomplish much of anything. I respect (not in a good way, but in a cautious, observant way) groups in the Middle East for their devotion to pragmatism. Many are willing to swallow their short-term pride for long-term benefit. Maybe that's why we're haven't been able to make certain progresses, because our leaders see things in black and white, Democrat and Republican, and we are thus outsmarted.

I don't care much for either party, both sides have a lot to improve on, but from reading North's article, it sounds like one side is absolutely horribe and the other just a bunch of angels.

And what are the real problems? That JSOC is limited in its capabilities and resources? That we haven't trained our soldiers adequately and are now losing hostages because of it? That every President for the past several decades has gutted our HUMINT capabilities? That it takes many years for intelligence investments to pay off? And political bickering and fighting terrorism are not mutually exclusive. But what are these real problems?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Secret Squirrel]

By LtCol Oliver L. North

June 24, 2004

Washington, D.C. - The ancient Chinese warrior Sun Tzu taught his men to "know your enemy" before going into battle. For if "you know your enemy and know yourself," he wrote, "you need not fear the result of a hundred battles." But, Sun Tzu warned, "If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat."

kind of an obvious point but i guess Sun Tzu does provide a good sound bite.


In my 22 years as an officer of Marines - from Annapolis to The Basic School to the Naval War College - similar advice was drilled into us: to know your enemy. It's sound guidance, pretty basic stuff, really. Yet there are apparently those in our government - people with many years of experience - supposedly learned statesmen, according to their bios and press reports - who somehow don't get it.

I guess it wouldnt be fun if he spelled out names here.


Our present enemy, properly identified by President George W. Bush and his National Security team, is the radical Islamic jihadist terror movement. Our enemy is not limited to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, though they certainly fit the bill. Radical Islamic jihadist terrorists, principally financed by Saudi petro-dollars, also carry out their killing under the rubric of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Ansar al-Islam, and dozens of other names. And though they use different monikers, they all have a common goal: to kill as many Americans, Christians and Jews as they can, using whatever tools they have at their disposal.

Was Bush the first person to define a terrorist as the enemy?


While these barbaric groups prefer mass killings and spectacular events like 9-11, they are more than willing to settle for individual atrocities: a suicide bus-bomber in Israel or the gruesome beheading of a single hostage. They know they can count on the Internet, Arabic-language broadcast media, of which al Jazerra is but one, and even Western press outlets to help them spread fear.

Agreed. It disgusts me when i see videos posted online that show someone being killed, though to me it doesnt matter the nationality of the "body".


These enemies are utterly ruthless, and indescribably brutal. Though the leaders of these groups do all they can to avoid death or capture, their "foot soldiers" are not only willing to die for their cause - they want to die. And unlike our adversaries of the past, this enemy is not motivated by goals that inspired armies of old: land, treasure, strategic waterways, or natural resources. Today's enemy is instead goaded by a twisted belief that they have a holy mission to advance their religion and drive Western influence - meaning Judeo-Christian values - from any Islamic territory.

Hrm...drive western influence from Islamic terrirtory...wouldnt that kind of fall under "land"? But i see his points.


The President and his team understand this enemy. Some Democrats, like Senators Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman do as well. Unfortunately, others who manage to command much more media attention, apparently believe that President Bush and his generals are the enemy. And their attacks on the President over these past few weeks have proved Sun Tzu's admonition, that if you don't know who your enemy really is, "for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat."

Good thing Sun Tzu isnt alive to see his words perverted. I hope he realizes that absolute blind faith in a leader is what caused a lot of black spots in history (ie. the Holocaust, when it was fashionable pretty much world wide to view society under the umbrella of eugenics and to try and safe guard your society).


The brutal beheading of American Paul Johnson is a tragic, sanguinary example of such a defeat. In the original statement issued by Paul Johnson's captors, they referred to the abuses at Abu Ghraib and said Johnson would be treated the same way that prisoners there were treated. The prison issue has inflamed the Arab world because too many of our political and media elites have treated the shameful actions of a few soldiers in an Iraqi prison as though it was the modern equivalent of the My Lai massacre. The blood of Paul Johnson is on their hands.

Interesting...after this one prison scandle broke, various other charges were filed against people in other places in Iraq and some in Ghanny and there were some investigations at Gitmo. I dont believe that the abuse was wide spread amongst the troops, but how wide spread was it amongst those troops who had contact with the prisoners? But thats the thing isnt, no one every really asks that question...it's always "a few soldiers acted out but they dont represent the entire force in Iraq". I agree with that statement. However, do these few soldiers represent the soldiers who are acting in smiliar roles guarding and prepping prisoners/P.O.W.s/detaines?


This week President George W. Bush met with Hungarian Prime Minister Peter Medgyessy in the Oval Office. Hours earlier, a 33 year-old South Korean, Kim Sun-il, an Arabic translator working in Iraq, was brutally beheaded by terrorists. The terrorists took this man hostage and threatened to kill him in an effort to influence the South Korean government to withdraw its troops from Iraq. The brutal beheading came just days after the beheading of Paul Johnson and just six weeks after the beheading of Nick Berg.

Surely the sophisticated scribes of the vaunted White House press corps would want to know the President's reaction to the brutal beheading of Kim Sun-il and ask what more he can do to win this war and protect American citizens at home and abroad. But when the opportunity arose to ask about the most recent atrocity, the first question from an American reporter was to inquire of the "perception" that torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib was authorized by the Bush administration. This inquiring whiz also wanted to know if the President thought it would be wise to have an independent commission look into the matter.

I guess he doesnt see the torture issue as being connected...*shrugs* maybe it is, maybe it isnt.


Twelve voices were shouting in anger, and they were all alike. No question, now, what had happened to the faces of the pigs. The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

And whats wrong with an independent commission to look into the matter? If the president has nothing to hide, whats the harm?


The media wants to know, because Democrat leaders on Capitol Hill are calling for exactly that. This week House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her brethren held a news conference to demand that a Select Committee of the Congress be established to investigate abuses, not just at Abu Ghraib prison, but at any prison in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Anything wrong with an independent commission?


They are convinced that the men and women of America's military are the bad guys. Senator Teddy Kennedy, an expert in scandals and water torture, routinely refers to abuses at Abu Ghraib as "torture" and "sadistic abuses." Former Vice President Al Gore routinely accuses the President of lying and setting the "moral climate for abuses" by our Armed Forces. Regrettably, they have spent far less time denouncing murderous terrorists, calling Islamic clerics to speak out against such behavior, or even issuing press releases condemning terror.

Does one need to reaffirm their view on terrorists every second of the day or is it one of those things that can be taken for granted?


The War on Terror will not be won until America is united. And as long as Democrats target the Bush administration - not the terrorists - as the enemy, we are in trouble.

You're in trouble if you think you can win the war on terror. The war on terrori is just another catch phrase coined to stir up conventional ideas. But how many really understand that you're waging war against a tactic. Maybe instead of ranting on and on he could have put forward a percise plan on how to "win" the war on terror? But instead he ends up adding to the very thing he's trying to critize.

[Black Dots]

I think North is missing the point entirely. This campaign in Iraq is all about credibility. The more credibility the occupation, and by extension the Iraqi government has, the easier the transition to sovereignty will be. Throughout history, insurgents have depended on the local populace for shelter and support. If that support shifts to the new government, the insurgents’ base will wane. Torturing prisoners is not an effective means of persuading Iraqi popular opinion. Prisoner torture should be criticized not only for humanitarian reasons, but because that type of behavior is simply counterproductive.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

While it's a bit simplistic to say "if our political opponents would just go away, we could win the war on terror" - I think Col. North just isn't framing his argument very well.

There is something to be said about the diversion of attention and resources. Also, our political system, with its election cycle can be a source of weakness (similar to what happened in Spain with the strategically timed bombings). One could also imagine that a candidate, seeking to retain office, could soften his stance to placate the other side of the isle. But we're stuck with the system, so there's not much to do about it.

More to the Col's point - it is the nature of the political attacks against Bush that is most damaging, not the simple facts that he has opponents. They don't simply say that they disagree with his policies. They accuse him of going to war for personal gain. They accuse him of corruption. In their fervor to unseat him, they IMHO they are doing serious harm to the country's legitimate interests. Like the bilge on moveon.org - comparing Bush to Hitler etc only serves to give support to America's enemies.

They know it's only a matter of time until they win via public opinion what they cannot win militarily. They have no chance of removing us by force of arms. But if they can convince enough of us...then we will do the work for them. Why else do you think the T's videotape every execution - every RPG attack - the attempted shootdown of the DHL cargo plane - it's all for PR value. It's their best weapon. Just my .02

[Black Dots]

comparing Bush to Hitler etc only serves to give support to America's enemies.


Agreed. Using melodramatic terms like that also shifts focus away from the important yet prosaic arguments regarding the war: bad intelligence, no WMD, Afghanistan is still not secure, etc... and prevents reflection upon the deficiencies in our defenses and foreign policy.


They know it's only a matter of time until they win via public opinion what they cannot win militarily. They have no chance of removing us by force of arms.

Bingo. However, I would take the argument a step further to say that coalition (read: American) policies have (and will have) the most important effect on that opinion. If we're really going to call this "Operation Iraqi Freedom" our actions should reflect the title.

[KB]

During the 1980s Iranian backed terrorists in Lebanon destroyed the US Embassy (twice), murdered over 300 US and French peacekeepers in suicide bombings, kidnapped, tortured and murdered CIA station chief William Buckley, kidnapped, tortured and murdered UN Observer LtCol Rich Higgins, USMC, murdered Navy diver Robert Stethem during the TWA 847 hijacking, and kidnapped numerous US citizens. The US response was......Iran contra, where the Reagan Administration did something the it swore it would never do: bargain with terrorists.

Ollie was a key player in arranging arms sales with the scumbags who killed his fellow Marines and many others, and who walk the earth unpunished to this day. Keep that in mind when reading his ****ouncements.

[Trigger]

Tane & KB, I won't even try to dispute North's past. All I was trying to say was that he had some valid points in the article.

[Tane Angle]

Fair enough, bud. ;) For what it's worth, I'm not frustrated at you, just at North. :D Have a good one bud, and just some thoughts...