Thursday, December 3, 2009 - 4:51 PM
The best line in yesterday's hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee goes to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who said near the close of the session that, "Quite frankly, I detest the phrase 'exit strategy.'" Loyal readers of this blog will know that I join him in that sentiment.
"What we are looking at over time is a transition in our relationship with the Afghans," explained Gates, who was present at the situation back in the 1980s when the United States walked away from its mujadhedeen allies in Afghanistan, with tragic consequences. "We will not repeat the mistake-we must not repeat the mistake of 1989, and turn our backs on these folks."
Win McNamee/Getty Images
Exit and transition are words with the same meaning when used in Gates context. If (a big ‘if’) we can successfully 'transition' our relationship with the Afghans then we can 'exit' the country. But as we all know if perchance we don’t do transition well then we still exit anyway. I am waiting for the day in this era of mega deficits when Gates starts calling the fabulous expenses of this war an ‘investment’.
Exit strategies are the type of thing that should be developed behind closed doors at the higher levels of government but generally should not be discussed in public. One would hope that they could be discussed at the White House, National Security Council, and State and Defense Departments without well-intentioned ideas about freedom of information requiring that the records and transcripts be disclosed to the public.
Actually, there is a political dynamic going on here, which Obama is compelled to address. He is not a right wing Republican who seem to so enjoy the endless sound of gunfire. He represents a party and a majority of American’s who need to know that there is not only light at the end of the tunnel but an end to the tunnel itself.
Politics in Washington? You Must Be Kidding
JP, I'm keenly aware that politics are involved, which Tom did a good job of explaining in his assessment of the president's speech. What I'm objecting to is being overly precise in public statements about when we'll be disengaging from a war--in essence, telling the other side when we'll quit. It's hardly like U.S. Grant saying that he would fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.
Agreed - could have satisfied the politics in a better way
I agree - Obama should not have been so specific about his timeline. I also object to the prominent placement of it in his speech - in the VERY NEXT sentence after he announced the sending of 30,000 troops:
"...as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home."
No transition, no mention of "conditions on the ground," no mention of the purpose or what is expected/planned for those 18 months, or anything else. Yes, it was all covered later on, but that's not what most people were listening to. Most just heard 'I'm sending more troops' and then 'we'll start leaving in 18 months.' Poorly structured in my opinion, making the 18 month timeline very prominent - the most prominent feature in much of the coverage in fact, since we already knew he was sending 30,000 troops.
And yes, I understand Tom's point that the speech was aimed at a certain political segment of the population. But I think he could have done the same to satisfy those folks (many of whom, like Bacevich, aren't satisfied with it anyway) without making the timeline so prominent to everyone else.
And when Grant said he would fight it out on that line if it took all summer, even that was overly optimistic and many people became inpatient with the indecisiveness of the campaign. In the end, it DID take all summer...and fall, and winter, and into the spring.
I know that it’s impolitic to talk about access to oil & gas as being one of our objectives, but keep your eye on Gwadar, which China envisions as a pipeline terminus; they won’t appreciate our messing with their plans.
The correct words to use in english are defeat and withdrawl. Besides, who cares what DC people like Gates thinks anyway. He will leave and join the looting, like the rest of his species.
I actually agree with Sec. Gates, and with Tom Ricks, about the phrase "exit strategy," which has come to mean a plan to deal with a politically difficult foreign entanglement in such a way that at some point it is not politically difficult any more.
Where I part company with Ricks is in my conviction that the tangible costs of such entanglements -- costs in blood that he acknowledges, and costs in treasure that he does not -- need to be part of our calculation as to whether their benefits to us are worth it and to how long we can afford to sustain them. At some point the costs can get to be so great that America just has to drop everything and leave. This is just a fact of life, and would be for any country. A responsible American government will recognize it, and adjust policy so that we never get to that point.
Whether Gates, in charge of the one government department least sensitive to the expense of its activities, sees the matter in quite this way I do not know. I appreciate his not wanting to repeat the first Bush administration's errors after 1989, but at that time all we needed to do was to be an honest broker between Afghan tribes and factions, helping them to find a way not to kill one another. We didn't need to serve as a kind of mother hen incubating the egg of an Afghan state. This vastly more difficult and expensive role is one America can afford to sustain for a finite period only.
Pete, I see your point and it makes sense to me in a more conventional conflict such as that which generated Grant’s famous statement. Obama’s remark seems to me a statement designed to accommodate a political necessity which always trumps mere military factors. In fact, and more than likely, the reality of initiating an exit strategy after eighteen months could take years to implement.
All in all I don’t see the Taliban shaking in their sandals over an American escalation. They are not going anywhere and don’t seem to be the slightest bit intimidated by fighting American troops or any others for that matter. Whether we say we may begin to leave in eighteen months or eighteen years is probably all the same to these people who are not accustomed to immediate gratification and know how to take a punch.
JP, in this case I don't think whether the war is conventional or unconventional has any bearing on whether an exit strategy should be publicly announced. The 18 months that President Obama included in his speech was an attempt to make a very bitter pill for his own constituency in the Democratic Party a little less bitter. It's a lot easier for the party not in power to demand a pullout from an unpopular war than it is to actually take responsibility for doing so when one is in the driver's seat.
Sometimes I think the American military tradition of demanding "unconditional surrender" going back to Grant at Fort Donaldson puts us at a disadvantage when we try to decide what our political objectives in a war should be. I hope we can leave Iraq and Afghanistan when more or less "satisfactory" outcomes have been achieved. In the future, though, I doubt the American public will tolerate years-long counterinsurgency and nation-building efforts in every failed state that has terrorists on its soil operating against the U.S. Our future military operations might eventually come to resemble the old British punitive expeditions in the western parts of India, now Pakistan, when things got out of hand there.
Pete, I think basically we are both on the same page. The British had a bit of an advantage in the 19th century in that pundits did not scrutinize their operations every evening on TV and chair bound bloggers critique them on the internet. Additionally, usually their campaigns actually included a majority of British officered (who also spoke the native language) indigenous troops whose reliability and performance were none too different from some of the British regular formations. The South Vietnamese Army, the Iraqi Army and the rag tag Afghan Army are far removed in quality from these carefully recruited and trained British colonial regiments.
I thought the best line was in response to Republicans remark that the talk of pulling back in 2011 would cause the Taliban to simply lay low for 18 months. Gates response:
"That would be terrific news"
even amongst a most sympathetic population a die-hard Taliban would not last a few weeks in Afghanistan. it would be much easier for said insurgent to lay low across the border. I doubt they would "lay low" as we saw in Rawalpindi.
My next point- are we seeing coordination between offenses on both sides of the border?
"We will not repeat the mistake-we must not repeat the mistake of 1989, and turn our backs on these folks."
Oh, why not? I mean, do we have any real long-term reason for alliance with either Pakistan or Afghanistan once the whole "war on terror" thing dies down? The Pakistani alliance was largely about the Cold War, and as soon as that was over the US retreated to a less active position (although they still favored the occasional dictator, like Musharraf).
Do we have any real long-term reason?
Hmmmm. The fact that Pakistan has a nuclear arsenal that terrorists would LOVE to get their hands on?
Is that enough, do you think?
After 3 years of Nightfall Ugg Boots communications, both the love. In 1945, the end of the war, Brown has been promoted to lieutenant colonel to Ultra Tall Ugg Boots meet urgent requirements. Judith back said: "At London Subway my mouth and so on. My chest to wear a United Kingdom national flower - red roses. However, I will not recognize you first. If you think I do not make you fit the Sundance II Ugg Boots female Friends, you can not deny me. "
Mens Custom Timberland Boots
$150.00 $84.00
Save: 44% off
Timberland Custom Boots menPremium Guaranteed Waterproof leather for comfort,
durability and abrasion resistance ; Timberland tree logo stamped on inside of
tongue ; Direct-attach waterproof construction keeps feet dry and comfortable ;
Durable laces with Taslan fibres for long-lasting wear ; Rubber lug outsole for
traction and durability ; Padded collar for a comfortable fit that locks out debris
; Rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Embroidered logo on side
http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/
Womens Roll-Top Timberland Boots
$143.00 $83.00
Save: 42% off
Timberland Roll-Top Boots womenPremium, full-grain, waterproof leather for comfort, durability and abrasion resistance ; Direct-attach, seam-sealed, waterproof construction keep feet dry in any weather ; Quarter panel crafted with rich shearling leather and is unconstructed so it can be worn up or rolled down ; Durable laces with Taslan? fibers and rustproof hardware for long-lasting wear ; Inside of shoe is lined with shearling - up to the toe box which is lined with breathable fabric ; Rubber lug outsole for traction and durability ; Embossed Timberland tree logo on the side ; Steel shank provides maximum support ; Waterproof
http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/
http://www.brawbuy.com/
http://www.myjerseysky.com/
http://www.ghdprincess.com/
(20)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE