There's been a lot of prattle of late about "an exit strategy"; most recently about our air attacks in Libya...
"What's our exit strategy?"...
I can just imagine FDR and Eisenhower being asked by the contemporary crop of "journalists" what our "exit strategy" was when we landed on the beaches of Normandy....
"Well, our 'exit strategy' is to march in to Berlin..."
This "what's our exit strategy" interpretation of warfare is a hyper modern concept, tied very much to our experience in Vietnam....
A war for which we had no logical "enter strategy"....
The notion that a nation should be able to reason out , a priori, it's commitment to battle, and how it plans to leave the fray is preposterous....
How could one possibly know that?
It's a ridiculous question....
To draw an analogy, it would be like asking a person who just met someone in a bar what their "exit strategy" was for avoiding a relationship...
ETA:
To ask our leaders when they have committed our forces and treasure, to a military effort "What do you plan to achieve?" is a fair question...
But to ask them within days of the commencement of the operation, "now that we're committed how do you plan to end it?"
Is idiotic...
An "Exit Strategy"
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Jim--the war FDR and Eisenhower were fighting was a declared war in which our congress committed to have the axis powers capitulate and get rid of the belligerent leadership. It is quite different from throwing bombs at Libya. Obama reiterated yesterday that we are not committed to regime change, so what are we there for and when will we know we are done?
But come on, we should enter a war and risk/kill our military men and women without knowing, upfront, exactly what we want to achieve and what we will do after we achieve it? You really think that?
But come on, we should enter a war and risk/kill our military men and women without knowing, upfront, exactly what we want to achieve and what we will do after we achieve it? You really think that?
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Big RR, "what we want to achieve" and "how soon to we plan to stop conducting military operations" are two separate questions....
The first is a legitimate question to ask;
The second is just plain silly.
The first is a legitimate question to ask;
The second is just plain silly.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
I agree with you to a degree but when you enter a conflict with absent a "total victory" agenda it opens up a whole can of worms in regard to "how will we know we're done" and "if things go wrong what will we do?"
I think Post Vietnam people just want to be assured of contingency planning.
I think Post Vietnam people just want to be assured of contingency planning.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Hello, Jim, are you awake?
There was always a clear exit strategy in Vietnam, which was reinforced after Nixon was elected. The country was overrun by invaders from the North, who were supported by indigenous guerillas. The intention was always to drive out and/or suppress those who sought to overthrow the government, then leave.
Neither the U.S. nor the RVN government had any intention of taking the battle to North VN or overthrowing that government; they just wanted to be left alone.
In Iraq, the (naive) expectation was that once Saddam was out of power, the majority Sunni's would establish some sort of representative government that would be an example for the rest of the Arab world, and once the country was stabilized we would be able to pull out.
In Libya, there is not only no exit strategy, we are not even certain what we are trying to accomplish. We don't know who we are supporting or what their agenda is. Indeed, there seems to be no coherent leadership structure (not surprising, since the seed organizations have been suppressed until now), and there is no realistic hope of anything better than chaos if Ghadaffi is deposed.
More important, on what basis was the decision to take hostile action against a sovereign country made? Fear of mass killings? Promotion of "democracy"? Getting rid of bad actors? Boredom?
I don't think it's asking too much to demand an exit strategy. We certainly don't have one now, and will surely be accused of a lack of seriousness if we pull out before some "acceptable" situation prevails.
Yet another blank check from a country with no money.
There was always a clear exit strategy in Vietnam, which was reinforced after Nixon was elected. The country was overrun by invaders from the North, who were supported by indigenous guerillas. The intention was always to drive out and/or suppress those who sought to overthrow the government, then leave.
Neither the U.S. nor the RVN government had any intention of taking the battle to North VN or overthrowing that government; they just wanted to be left alone.
In Iraq, the (naive) expectation was that once Saddam was out of power, the majority Sunni's would establish some sort of representative government that would be an example for the rest of the Arab world, and once the country was stabilized we would be able to pull out.
In Libya, there is not only no exit strategy, we are not even certain what we are trying to accomplish. We don't know who we are supporting or what their agenda is. Indeed, there seems to be no coherent leadership structure (not surprising, since the seed organizations have been suppressed until now), and there is no realistic hope of anything better than chaos if Ghadaffi is deposed.
More important, on what basis was the decision to take hostile action against a sovereign country made? Fear of mass killings? Promotion of "democracy"? Getting rid of bad actors? Boredom?
I don't think it's asking too much to demand an exit strategy. We certainly don't have one now, and will surely be accused of a lack of seriousness if we pull out before some "acceptable" situation prevails.
Yet another blank check from a country with no money.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Jim--if you have the first answer, I think you will also have the second, with the answer being "when we achieve the objective". but that requires that the objective be definable and that we can tell when it is achieved. In the Libyan situation, we have neither; oh we can stay we want to stop Ghadaffi from attacking his people, but what does that mean? When and how will he be stopped short of being removed from power (which Obama states is not an objective of ours)? And if it were to remove him, wouldn't we also say what we want to have in his place and how that will be achieved? Failing that, we are needlessly risking American lives and killing nationals for no reason. It was wrong is Vietnam, it was wrong in Iraq, and it's wrong now.Lord Jim wrote:Big RR, "what we want to achieve" and "how soon to we plan to stop conducting military operations" are two separate questions....
The first is a legitimate question to ask;
The second is just plain silly.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Precisely. The exit strategy was to march across Europe, inflicting defeat after defeat upon the German armies until they no longer had any means with which to fight, accept their complete and unconditional surrender, and go home. (Of course, in the months and years that followed a different threat had emerged in Europe which required leaving behind a substantial force, from which it was recognized that there would be no exit strategy and that those forces would remain indefinitely - and still do.)Lord Jim wrote:I can just imagine FDR and Eisenhower being asked by the contemporary crop of "journalists" what our "exit strategy" was when we landed on the beaches of Normandy....
"Well, our 'exit strategy' is to march in to Berlin..."
The problem in more recent conflicts is that there have been no similarly clear and measurable objectives, and as such no way of knowing what conditions to look for that will make it possible to know when to pull out. The reason why people are clamoring for an exit strategy is that the originally stated objectives of war in Afghanistan in Iraq were either (a) nothing but pretexts (WMD), (b) achieved (ouster of Saddam, overthrow of Taliban as the de jure gov't ), or (c) all but abandoned (capture/killing of Osama bin Laden), and as a result of gross miscalculation that the Iraqi and Afghan peoples would be unanimously jumping for joy, waving flags in the streets and throwing rose petals at the feet of the U.S. soldiers who "liberated" them, troops are now engaged in a guerrilla war to create "stable democracy" in both countries, a goal that, realistically, is several decades off.
The contrast with WWII is clear: in that war, what victory would look like remained consistent from the first day to the last, so even if no one knew or could expect to know the exact date the conflict would be over, they could see from the progress of the war whether that end appeared to be getting nearer or further away.
So yes, people want to know when we are leaving, because they have no idea whether we are now 5 or 10 years closer or further away from achieving the wars' ill defined objectives than we were 3 or 5 or 7 years ago.
"Hang on while I log in to the James Webb telescope to search the known universe for who the fuck asked you." -- James Fell
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
My plan has always been:
Two shots to the nose, side kick to the knee, run.
Another good answer is BR549, actually that is a good answer for any question even similar to the one in the OP...
Two shots to the nose, side kick to the knee, run.
Another good answer is BR549, actually that is a good answer for any question even similar to the one in the OP...
Sometimes it seems as though one has to cross the line just to figger out where it is
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
"Regime change", I believe is the popular term. Oh, and the peace and stability we've brought to Iraq..
At least 41 people have been killed after gunmen stormed a council building in northern Iraq and took dozens of hostages.
Security forces laid siege to the building in Tikrit for several hours before moving in, officials say.
Several council members and a journalist are said to be among the dead and scores more are reported wounded.
Tikrit, Saddam Hussein's hometown, has been a bastion of a Sunni insurgency.
Officials said gunmen dressed in military uniform stormed the provincial council building after a suicide bomber detonated his explosives outside
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12894372
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Od course presenting a measurable and definable objective which is to be realized before we leave would require being honest with the people to get their support; and we all know how politicians, including Obama, hate doing that.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
The term "exit strategy" is a tired term, but it developed to address situations that could be open-ended. Usually, it goes hand in hand with poorly thought out military interventions, where the goals are not clearly defined going in.
For example, with Libya, if we are truly just preventing a massacre of people, when do we leave since there will never be a time when such a thing is not possible there, even after Gaddafi is gone (if that happens)?
If, we are also trying to help the rebels overthrow the current regime, do we stay until that happens, or alternatively, until it becomes obvious it won't happen? If things start looking bad for the rebels, do we up our involvement, or do we have a firm position to only provide the limited support currently being provided?
Some commentators have suggested that we got involved because France and others requested our involvement and we felt obliged to support our allies in an effort they believed was of critical importance. Do we stay as long as they want us to stay, or have we stated when we would leave?
In this context, the question of an exit strategy means, under what circumstances do we withdraw as the various scenarios play out. It is fair to ask an administration what their plans are for the foreseeable consequences, even if the answer is "depends".
For example, with Libya, if we are truly just preventing a massacre of people, when do we leave since there will never be a time when such a thing is not possible there, even after Gaddafi is gone (if that happens)?
If, we are also trying to help the rebels overthrow the current regime, do we stay until that happens, or alternatively, until it becomes obvious it won't happen? If things start looking bad for the rebels, do we up our involvement, or do we have a firm position to only provide the limited support currently being provided?
Some commentators have suggested that we got involved because France and others requested our involvement and we felt obliged to support our allies in an effort they believed was of critical importance. Do we stay as long as they want us to stay, or have we stated when we would leave?
In this context, the question of an exit strategy means, under what circumstances do we withdraw as the various scenarios play out. It is fair to ask an administration what their plans are for the foreseeable consequences, even if the answer is "depends".
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
And the biggest problem with regime change is we also have to say what we are fighting for, not only against. Somehow, I doubt many in South vietnam preferred Diem or Thieu to those from the North, and they weren't the sort of thugs we should have been defending (OK, we got rid of Diem, but look who we put in his place); if we want to take a dictator out, we should be sure what we a fighting to replace him with. If we want to take our chances, just arm the rebels and stay out of the fight.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
What a poor question.
We do not have to have an "exit strategy".
In this case we are helping to stop a humanitarian crisis and creating an opportunity for Libyans to create a legitimate government for themselves.
It is impossible for us to do the latter for them, a point that BushCo were too stupid to understand in Iraq or Afghanistan.
In this case, and not in Iraq, the people of Libya have already proven that they are willing to risk their lives in large numbers to overthrow a dictatorship and will thus welcome assistance and not treat us as an invading army.
And it is overwhelmingly better for this to be a truly international effort which people other than us are allowed to lead.
Every week I have reason to be relieved that someone smart and not someone deeply stupid is in the White House.
yrs,
rubato
We do not have to have an "exit strategy".
In this case we are helping to stop a humanitarian crisis and creating an opportunity for Libyans to create a legitimate government for themselves.
It is impossible for us to do the latter for them, a point that BushCo were too stupid to understand in Iraq or Afghanistan.
In this case, and not in Iraq, the people of Libya have already proven that they are willing to risk their lives in large numbers to overthrow a dictatorship and will thus welcome assistance and not treat us as an invading army.
And it is overwhelmingly better for this to be a truly international effort which people other than us are allowed to lead.
Every week I have reason to be relieved that someone smart and not someone deeply stupid is in the White House.
yrs,
rubato
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Smart? If he were truly smart he would have sold the American people (and Congress) on the strategy and our specific objectives before we went in, but like many in the WH before him he couldn't or wouldn't do that.
And tell me rubato, when does the "humanitarian crisis" end and how will we know? and what if the rebels succeed and put in a government just as, or even more, brutal; do we intervene then?
I agree we should let the people create their own government; maybe even arm them to bring it about, but we have the stage set for another endless conflict which will go on until Obama (or some later president) decrees it over. whether doing that is smartor stupid is a question we each must answer.
And tell me rubato, when does the "humanitarian crisis" end and how will we know? and what if the rebels succeed and put in a government just as, or even more, brutal; do we intervene then?
I agree we should let the people create their own government; maybe even arm them to bring it about, but we have the stage set for another endless conflict which will go on until Obama (or some later president) decrees it over. whether doing that is smartor stupid is a question we each must answer.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Better to let people Die While politicians grandstand
Right RR?
Right RR?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Overthrowing a dictator, establishing a legitimate and somewhat democratic government, and securing human right is one of the most difficult things human beings ever attempt. Many will fail and no one can do it for them or guarantee success.
The Sandinistas succeeded (even with the dictators troops being supported by Reagan) in doing this. A few of the former Soviet states have done so with some success (Czech, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia. Taiwan only in recent years completed a transition to pluralist democracy. Many countries struggle long after the dictator or occupier is overthrown with corruption and significant human rights issues (India) or lapse back into strongman rule and corruption (Russia).
Only a fool expects a storybook world outcome in this, the most real world of all.
But when the people of a nation show by their actions that they are ready to risk everything to achieve dignity and freedom we have an obligation to support that when we can. By enlisting our partners, who share our values, Obama has shown real brillliance by spreading the pain and difficulty and making them all 'stakeholders' in success.
yrs,
rubato
The Sandinistas succeeded (even with the dictators troops being supported by Reagan) in doing this. A few of the former Soviet states have done so with some success (Czech, Slovakia, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia. Taiwan only in recent years completed a transition to pluralist democracy. Many countries struggle long after the dictator or occupier is overthrown with corruption and significant human rights issues (India) or lapse back into strongman rule and corruption (Russia).
Only a fool expects a storybook world outcome in this, the most real world of all.
But when the people of a nation show by their actions that they are ready to risk everything to achieve dignity and freedom we have an obligation to support that when we can. By enlisting our partners, who share our values, Obama has shown real brillliance by spreading the pain and difficulty and making them all 'stakeholders' in success.
yrs,
rubato
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
No better to make certain we know what we are doing before we go in and make promises we cannot, or will not, keep (or haven't even considered). going in with no plan and guns blazing helps no one in the long run.Crackpot wrote:Better to let people Die While politicians grandstand
Right RR?
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
There exists no future in which either we, or our close allies, are not seriously effected by what happens in Libya.
Demanding certainty in such a situation is evidence of infantilism.
yrs,
rubato
Demanding certainty in such a situation is evidence of infantilism.
yrs,
rubato
-
Sue U
- Posts: 9089
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
I don't think it's too much to ask that there is an articulable purpose, an actual plan and some metric by which to determine its completion (other than a banner saying "mission accomplished"). Involving ourselves in another country's civil war, without more -- no matter how brutal the war -- is rarely a good idea. Why Lybia rather than Sudan or Cote D'Ivoire or Congo? What policy goals distinguish this conflict from others?
GAH!
Re: An "Exit Strategy"
Sue--Wait, wait, I know; because they have oil?