Posted on 03/27/2002 10:36:55 PM PST by Joe_at_Stavka
Today, one hears people everywhere, from pundits, to politicians asking the same question about the Afghanistan campaign. Everyone wants yo know, "What's the exit strategy?" Asking about an "exit strategy" in our current situation demonstrates a lack of understanding that borders on a reality disconnect. The question comes of course from "The Powell Doctrine", which Secretary of State Powell enunciated while he was still Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Then Chairman Powell stated several critical prerequisites to committing the United States military to any foreign intervention. Key among them, if we send in troops, we go in with overwhelming strength. Second, before we send soldiers into harm's way, we must define clear victory conditions and an exit strategy. While the doctrine includes other points, these two have the most relevance to the issue at hand. Obviously, the last is the source of all the questions one hears about an "exit strategy".
Clearly, the Powell Doctrine makes enormous sense where it applies; however, only a small part of it applies to the war on terror. Furthermore, the issue of an exit strategy applies very little, if at all. Pundits and politicians, who foolishly ask, "What's the exit strategy," seem to forget that we are not intervening in another country; we are responding to vicious attacks on our homeland by fanatical terrorists. The reality behind those simple facts severely limits the latitude available to the United States in choosing its course of action.
Consider three significant historical examples from the World War II era. On September 2, 1939, Germany, and almost simultaneously the Soviet Union, invaded Poland. Imagine listening to the radio in your Warsaw living room a week later. You hear a member of your government demand, "What's the exit strategy?" What do you think? Move the scene forward a few months and again you sit in your living room in Paris, as the Germans roll over France. You hear a French commentator ask, "What's the exit strategy?" What do you say?
The Battle of Britain of course provides the most relevant example from the dark days at the start of World War II. The Battle of Britain began in June 1940 and lasted through September. During the campaign, Britain suffered terrible civilian casualties and unsustainable military losses, while the Germans massed invasion barges in the French "Channel ports". How would Britains have answered the question, "What's the exit strategy?" They stood united, knowing they had the same choices as the French and Poles before them. Britain would either win; or, they would learn to speak German; and, they had better not be Jewish!
Today, while not as immediate, we face choices similar to those faced by the people of Great Britain in 1940. Either we deal effectively with our attackers and their allies, or they will continue attacking until we capitulate. If I could say exactly how to "deal effectively" with our enemies, I could take over for Condoleezza Rice! I can however say what we must accomplish. At a minimum, we must deter potential "martyrs" from attacking America and its allies. More generally, we must win a decisive and complete victory in this war. If we fail, we will all do two other things: learn Arabic and convert to Islam.
I think that our current strategy of attacking the closest enemy first is correct. Once this nearest foe is taken down, then we move to the next target (Iraq). Then we'll see what falls out of the tree after we shake it - China or Russia will be the next level above Iran and North Korea. Iran is supplied heavily by both Russia and China, but China seems to be far more concerned with our presence in that part of the world and their rhetoric would be quite likely to inflame Americans into action. Certainly if we were to destroy North Korea, China would enter the fight just as it did 50 years ago. No, there is no exit strategy. There is only World War 3 now. Might as well get prepared mentally for it.
Assuming success in both of the earlier efforts, no slam dunk, and possibly in Somalia, Iraq might not require an armed struggle. If they do not come to heel, then we could move against them, leaving Iran for last; again, only if necessary. In addition, disposing of the weaker Islamist states first will further isolate Iraq and reduce the need for a "coalition".
The key to this strategy is taking out the weaker adversary first. Napoleon and Hitler both failed to do so, and lost everything as a consequence.
I do not think President Bush seriously intends to invade North Korea. In all likelihood, the two Koreas will merge before we have finished with the Islamist menace. Thus, China would only seem to concern us if circumstances forced us to attack our new ally, Pakistan. After Chechnya, Russia has no love for Islamist militants. They would probably object only if we failed to execute every Chechen we catch. However, I doubt that our failing to do so would provoke Russia into joining with the Islamists against us. Thus, while this situation, if not handled carefully, could lead to WWIII, I do not see your scenario as the route over the cliff.
"What possible exit strategy can you have against an enemy whose ordinary soldier signs up with the following oath (found among the documents captured from al Qaeda in Afghanistan): "I state in the presence of God that I will slaughter infidels for my entire life"? There is only one exit strategy in fighting such a man. He dies or you die. No other exit."
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.