Deciphering Sun Tzu: How to Read The Art of War

"My last book is Derek M. C. Yuen’s Deciphering Sun Tzu: How to Read The Art of War . This may seem a departure from my books on terrorism; however, I believe it is a complement to them. Understanding the Daoist philosophy at the heart of Sun Zi’s writings provides a great lens through which to understand the logic of terrorism. Terrorist attacks are used for leverage against a state. Having emerged from an era of air power and nuclear theory, Westerners tend to think strictly in terms of coercion and compellence, missing the strategic logic of leveraging weak tactic. As I’ve written elsewhere, the most effective terrorist strategies are provocation, polarization and mobilization—that is, forcing a state to over-react and undermine its own interests, dividing populations so that there is no governable middle or taking actions against a target that are actually intended for an entirely different audience. Terrorist groups throughout history have used each of these strategies well. They take advantage of a state’s vulnerabilities. The key in counterterrorism is to leverage the enemy’s weakness rather than allow it to exploit yours. In my own work, I found that reading Sun Zi and then thinking about Yuen’s Daoist interpretation of his ideas shed light not only upon modern Chinese strategic thinking but also the strategies of terrorism. Not the demise of terrorism per se, but I think that we made progress at crafting a broader, more strategic approach to the demise of al-Qaeda. The US started out immediately after September 11 in a way that was consistent with how many democracies respond after a traumatic terrorist attack. We struck back hard, over-emphasizing military force. It was an instinctive response and, if you look at the history of counter-terrorism, not unusual. But as the years went by, we gained sophistication in understanding the enemy, the leveraged nature of this kind of violence, and the need for a much broader range of types of counter-terrorism. This included everything from aid and diplomacy to developing local partnerships, cooperating with allies in intelligence, distinguishing between elements of the ‘movement’, developing de-radicalization programs, and to even, in some circumstances, working with local partners to engage in negotiations with nationalist groups. We made progress by using this range of instruments. As the years went by, there were clear signs of Al Qaeda’s implosion, by which I mean internal weaknesses, in-fighting, ideological bickering, loss of operational control, targeting mistakes and loss of popular support. But we gradually overemphasized our paramilitary tools, such as drone strikes and direct action, drawing anger back on us and ignoring the broader strategic consequences. Unfortunately, because of the Syrian civil war and harsh treatment of Sunnis by the post-occupaton Iraqi government, ISIS dramatically arose and became a successor to Al Qaeda. ISIS has been responsible for horrible violence, not least the tragic deaths of so many innocent people in Paris. How can we not be both anxious and angry? The danger is that we will now fail to analyze ISIS’s vulnerabilities—to think about how it will end, how best to help it along to its demise—instead making short-term policy decisions mainly on the basis of our rage."