by J. R. Nyquist
In the Chinese classic, The Art of War, Sun Tzu says: “one who is good at martial arts overcomes others’ forces without battle, conquers others’ cities without siege, destroys others’ nations without taking a long time.” This is accomplished by a process the ancient Chinese strategists called “strategic siege.” It is an approach the enemy cannot detect; the kind of long-range strategy adopted by Mao Zedong and Nikita Khrushchev during the Cold War; the kind of strategy used to orient the Chinese and Russian security services around 1960. It involves a strategy of “peaceful coexistence” and “détente.” It is a strategy of passive aggression, of masked enmity and treacherous cooperation. It continues today even though the West suspects nothing. It was described in 1984 by KGB defector Anatoliy Golitsyn when he wrote: “the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and stratagems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable stratagems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe….”
In the 1950s Russia and China were cut off economically and isolated by the West, outclassed by Western technology, hemmed in by American bases, surrounded by alliances like NATO and SEATO. Russia wanted to break out. China desired to industrialize. In keeping with these desires,
Joseph Stalin planned an invasion of Western Europe. In Asia the Chinese invaded Tibet and the North Koreans invaded South Korea. Chinese leader
Mao Zedong even talked of building a navy and invading the continental United States. But the aggressive plans of the dictators came to nothing. Stalin died mysteriously in 1953, his war plan unfulfilled. North Korean aggression was thwarted by the United States in 1950, and China’s ambitions ran aground on Mao’s misbegotten “great leap forward.” The Chinese and Russians lacked the economic means and the technology to advance their plans. In order to break out from isolation, to gain the technology and capital needed, they began to reorganize themselves internally – first with Khrushchev’s denunciation of Stalin, then with a reorganization of the secret police, finally with a more flexible foreign policy. In Russia this was the first de-Stalinization. In China, Mao met with Nixon and a great “opening” began. In both instances the same principle was at work. As Sun Tzu explained: “All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe that we are away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.” The communist world was feigning disorder, and this operation was to be redoubled in the 1990s until the West declared itself the winner in the Cold War.
None of the zigzag moves of Russian and Chinese leaders indicated an abandonment of the old objectives. Yeltsin announced an end to Russian armaments, but as we see today with the appearance of new types of tanks, jets, submarines and ICBMs, Russia’s armaments industry used the 1990s to lay new plans and new foundations for a further generation of modern weaponry that would outclass the Western arsenal. Conquest was still uppermost in the Eastern mind. But first, diversion and deception would be used on a grand scale. Disinformation would be spread on all sides; seeds of confusion sown; target countries infiltrated; intelligence officers doubled back as moles; major media corrupted; financial institutions penetrated. The attack would take place on many levels simultaneously. It would come from more than one direction at once, using every conceivable approach. Agreements would be signed with organized crime groups for the piggybacking of political influence with criminal influence in Canada, Mexico and the United States. There would be an economic vector of attack, a theological vector in the churches, an organized crime vector, an educational vector, etc. Society itself was the target, instead of troop concentrations or missile bases. Drug trafficking would be used as a major conduit for spreading financial corruption through money laundering. At the same time, the youth of the West would be culturally reoriented through the ready availability of illegal drugs. Marxist guerrillas in Latin America would be funded through drug trafficking. With rising corruption, politicians and security officials could be blackmailed, financial institutions robbed, authority undermined. All of this was organized decades ago by the largest secret services in the world, with the greatest accumulation of institutional experience in history. The natural weaknesses and flaws in Western society would be exploited, exacerbated, manipulated for strategic ends.
Russia and China are backward countries encumbered by inefficient state bureaucracies. But ask yourself the following questions: How does a state come to control the largest land area? How does a state come to govern the largest number of people? The success of a country may be measured in the extent of its territory and the number of its subjects. In the West, we measure success in GNP and a country’s standard of living. By these standards the Russians are not even half as powerful as France. If we match Russia and France in a military contest, however, the French would only last a matter of hours. GNP is not a measurement of power, but a measurement of consumption. During World War II the Russian economy was considerably smaller than the combined economies of the European Axis countries (Germany, Italy, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria). But Russia’s war production was many times higher. Her war-making capabilities were greater. Despite the initial successes of the Axis armies, Russia defeated them in one battle after another.
A tribe among tribes does not gain vast territories without a sophisticated strategic culture and warlike spirit. In the Chinese period of the “warring states,” only a state with the most sophisticated strategic culture could emerge on top. The cunning qualities of that state were communicated to the whole of China. And China is indelibly stamped with that strategic ideal. China was unified by strategy, not by political compromise. And now China is building its forces for “going outward.” Its massive population and polluted land requires a policy of expansion. This is not something China could accomplish in the 1970s, 80s or 90s. Since China has been weaker than the United States, the American side must first be weakened by the method of “strategic siege.” Trade must be used to encourage American de-industrialization. The alliance with Russia must be strengthened. New weapons must be deployed. A new communist alliance must be built, including countries like Venezuela and Bolivia. The United States must be disorganized by means of clever propaganda, psychological warfare and economic sabotage, gray terrorism leading to red terror. America must be alienated from its allies and thrown into disorder. Ho Yanxi once explained, “One who is good at laying siege does not lay siege with an army, but uses strategy to thwart the opponents, causing them to overcome themselves and destroy themselves, rather than taking them by a long and troublesome campaign.” Exploiting divisions within the enemy camp is fundamental.
At the same time Americans have been diverted in their strategy – diverted into the Middle East. They have also been diverted by quarrels among themselves. In a book titled
The Enemy at Home, Dinesh D’Souza says there are two Americas. There is the America of the left, and the America of the right. He quotes Jonathan Franzen in this context: “One half the country believes that Bush is crusading against the Evil One while the other half believes that Bush is the Evil One.” Within America there are divisions. Dividing lines have formed into battle lines: i.e., of rich vs. poor (class warfare), black vs. white (race warfare), man vs. woman (feminist ideology), child vs. parent (youth culture), Democrat vs. Republican. As American society becomes more hedonistic, more individualist, more “self-actualizing,” there is less cohesion and unity, more neurosis and chemical dependency; less churchgoing and more shopping; less civility and more ideology; more shrill rhetoric and less strategic acumen. The voters have become politically stupid. They cannot distinguish authentic from inauthentic candidates. They choose according to the most superficial criteria. Therefore, superficial persons fill the political stage.
The Russians and Chinese watch the process of American political disintegration. They watch the American economy as it stumbles along. Already the losses in the mortgage sector are said to exceed half a trillion. The dollar is seriously weakened. Banks are in trouble. It is only the beginning of a larger crisis – the crisis anticipated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in which capitalism is finally discredited and overthrown by socialist revolutionaries. Meanwhile, the long march through American higher education has put Marxists and socialist-sympathizers in the forefront. The media and the culture are permeated with a rising tide of anti-American, anti-capitalist lies. The United States cannot effectively wage the so-called “war on terror.”
As D’Souza points out in his book, the United States has not properly identified its enemy in the ongoing war. We know absolutely nothing about the enemy’s objectives. What was 9/11 supposed to achieve? Looking at the present dismal situation, can we say that 9/11 accomplished its purpose? The enemies of America understand the extent to which America is divided. In any conflict, the division was bound to intensify. Confusion reigns on all sides as right accuses left and left accuses right. It is impossible to communicate strategically important information today because everyone’s ears are plugged with ideological nonsense. KGB defector
Alexander Litvinenko warned that Russia was behind the terrorism of al Qaeda. He stated this in plain language, for everyone to read. He said that Ayman al Zawahiri was a long-time KGB agent, and he knew this from KGB colleagues involved in Zawahiri’s training. When Litvinenko was poisoned with polonium-210 a year ago last month, the press completely ignored the warning that got him killed. He was dismissed as a shadowy spy involved in shadowy dealings.
The deception continues and the deceived remain diverted, divided, deluded.
"Strategic Siege" in the Great Game
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks