'Exit strategy' - a mere phrase, not a strategy

Arguments for and against the U.S. troop presence in Iraq assume that having an "exit strategy" is a fundamental military principle. It isn't. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was right in April to say, "We don't have an exit strategy, we have a victory strategy."

Yet with public support here waning and suicide attacks in Iraq persisting, the calls for an exit strategy are being heard not just in the news media, but also in the halls of Congress.

As for rhetoric, "exit strategy" didn't appear in any major U.S. publication before 1980. That was seven years after American forces left Vietnam, an exit that could hardly be called strategic, let alone triumphant. It was a business term, coined by the CEO of Docutel Corp. (which invented the ATM) in a story in The New York Times on June 4, 1980. A LexisNexis search identifies the phrase in only 17 newspaper articles during the 1980s, all business stories.

Not until 1993 was "exit strategy" used in a military context. During testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 27, 1993, Secretary of State Warren Christopher listed the Clinton administration's four conditions for military engagements, concluding, "an 'exit strategy' for getting out quickly must exist." This new approach was part of Christopher's justification for intervening in Bosnia. A writer for The Boston Globe warned that the exit strategy would take a century. And in one sense, such critics were right - 951 troops remain deployed in Bosnia today. The troops have not exited, but the genocide did.

The obvious lesson is that exit strategies are superfluous to strategy, yet pundits conceive of them as inviolate. Syndicated columnist Molly Ivins wrote twice on the topic in the months before 9/11 - claiming the 37,000 GIs in South Korea were a useless leftover from the 1950s conflict, remaining only because "we didn't have an exit strategy at the time, and no one has thought one up since." In another column, Ivins asserted that one of the two big lessons from Vietnam is "have an exit strategy."

The notion of planning (that is, controlling) a war is a fantasy, and timing an orderly disengagement from an active enemy is worse than fantasy. These aren't football games with clearly defined teammates, referees and an official clock.

A review of U.S. military engagements is useful here. American soldiers were deployed to Germany and Japan as occupiers after World War II. But the threat of tyranny did not fade after 1945, and the Cold War demanded America's engagement. Six decades on, troops remain widely deployed.

Pentagon data reveal that 29 countries today host more than 100 American soldiers. In all, 387,463 troops were stationed abroad last year, which is actually lower than any year from 1950 to 1992. On average, 22% of U.S. troops serve overseas, which makes 2005 relatively normal. The successful strategy of the past 50 years has been engagement and alliance, not exit and pacifism.

The pattern shows that exits are the result of failure, not success. Today, no U.S. forces are in Vietnam, where the communists invaded and conquered our ally in the South. Ask yourself: Which country is better off, the Vietnam that got an exit or the Korea that didn't?

Despite the evidence of history, politicians such as Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., see the U.S. military presence in Iraq as "part of the problem." The New Republic has said "the United States should pack up and come home," once Iraqi forces have been trained. But that's exactly the question: When will Iraq be ready to defend itself?

Patience erodes when bloodshed seems constant. But my research confirms that the enduring presence of U.S. troops enhances economic growth among host countries. Indeed, countries with high U.S. troop presence during 1950-2000 saw their economies grow nearly twice as fast as the world average. Such growth is essential now to cutting the roots of terrorism.

But don't confuse this as an argument for maintaining military forces on foreign soil ad infinitum. The argument is that the United States should do whatever is necessary to preserve peace and to promote liberty. Those are the ends. Exits and entries are the means.

Timothy Kane is a research fellow in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

Wonder what the "exit strategy" is to get out of the Social Security ponzi scheme before it crashes in disaster on some poor innocent generation.

It was sold in the 1930s as a "compact between the generations." They conveniently ignored the fact that a contract entered into with a minor (to say nothing of the not-yet-born) is invalid.

I know it's off topic, but really, if it's an "exit strategy" people want, I can think of many other government undertakings for which it would be more than the war in Iraq.

"I think the author misses the point. What people really want to hear are the conditions in which we can start pulling out troops, and Bush has done a pretty poor job of defining those conditions. If Bush can come out with a set of things that need to be done, and if possible, a timetable in which those things will be completed, it will go a long way."

A long way to what? If you have to write such a statement, then regardless of what the POTUS or DoD would make public would not really mean anything to you anyway.

Don't you understand, the POTUS said a long time ago in precise and clear words, yes precise. That we will remain in Iraq until the job is finished and not a day longer.

I am not bashing you believe me. Any war brings on the fog and obviouse divisions, often based on how the news reports things. Many Freepers as most Americans do not wade into the details then carefully compare what has happened during the past few years. So again, I am not trying to be nasty, nor deceptive.
But the fact is, the less is known about any future ideas of when our force can start to diminish in size the better the chance the invasion (war to remove Saddam from power and destroy his ability to make war, then the follow up SASO to stabilize and secure Iraq), have a better chance of success.
When we allow the damn fool senate and house to start meddling in affairs that are supposed to be left up to the POTUS and DoD, we are bound to really fall into the trap.
There is a difference between the congress asking the POTUS and DoD to provide continued info on how much monies are required to support OIF II. And they certainly in meetings have the right to question how much is needed and why. But they have no right to be performing those tasks not given them by constitutional law to meddle in functions they do not possess. Think about this. If you have not figured it out yet, do so. And do think about the distinct possibility their actions are politically motivated, in most cases. Yes the libs as well as the RINOs.

Let me ask you one question. Do you really in your heart with the foreknowledge (I truly hope you are observant) of how much political infighting and things that border on sedition and treason, by certain members of congress have been going on, that it is wise to allow these morons to upset the apple cart this late in the game?
I pull no punches, and I am not trying to be cute a clever as that old adage goes. I am quite serious with this question. And in line with this question. Do you think it is good to let the world of terrorist know what our schedule is to pull out of Iraq?

Arguments for and against the U.S. troop presence in Iraq assume that having an "exit strategy" is a fundamental military principle.

Not true.
That makes as much sense as saying that it's possible to have an "exit strtegy" while experiencing a tornado.
Random unpredictable events are not subject to that sort of manipulation.

No I don't care what opposition politicians say.

My usual response is:
Name and document one war in history where either side had an "exit strategy"...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.