by Vegetius
Download the full article: End States vs. Strategies
I don't know who came up with the term "exit strategy", but if he (or she) is still alive he should be taken out and shot. An exit is not a strategy; it is a retreat. There is nothing wrong with cutting losses and running if the situation dictates, but let's call it what it is. However, let's also make sure that the war is lost before we resort to that. In Iraq and Afghanistan we have stated exit strategies, but no clear stated vision of what we want either nation to look like when we are done.
If getting out of these two wars is our only objective, we need to fire the entire national security apparatus and replace its personnel with divorce lawyers; they are the true exit strategists.
The great strategists in history have always had clear end states of what they had in mind for the strategic landscape that they were dealing with and knew how to match those ends to available means. Perhaps the greatest practitioner of this approach in modern times was Otto Von Bismarck. The Iron Chancellor had a clear vision of a greater Germany united under Prussian leadership. He moved carefully to make this happen with three limited objective wars in which he diplomatically outmaneuvered his opponents, isolating his intended victims from military and political outside support. In doing so, he always ensured that the Prussian military did not stray outside his intended use for armed force in achieving the desired end state.
Our strategic situation is obviously different. Today, we are engaged in a war against radical Islamic expansionism rather than the kind of voluntary wars of dynastic expansion that Bismarck engineered. Our situation is more similar to that of the Byzantine Empire, and we have the same enemy, albeit in a new incarnation; that being expansionist radical Islamic Jihad. The Byzantine grand strategy of containing radical Jihadist Islam succeeded for approximately seven centuries. The Eastern Roman Empire had a comprehensible strategic framework for dealing with this Jihadist threat. Thus far, we do not.
Download the full article: End States vs. Strategies
The author is a government employee and a former infantryman.
About the Author(s)
Comments
Vegetius,
I can understand your frustration over the lack of long term strategy for Afghanistan and Iraq (you can add Iran sometime in 2010 or 2011 when the Israelis decided to eliminate Irans nuclear program). However, why are you "appalled by the fact that beyond exit time lines, there appears to be no long-term plan for ensuring the territorial integrity of Iraq or Afghanistan against predatory neighbors". Do we need to be concerned about the territorial integrity of Afghanistan and Iraq? Russia is no threat to Afghanistan-they already learned their lesson in the 1980s. Afghanistan is a failed nation-state. The neighboring nations of Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan should annex (with our assistance) the adjoining Tajik, Uzbek and Turkmen regions of Afghanistan and end the war for the 50% of Afghans that belong to those ethnic groups ( see my comments under the article "Afghanistan Governed by a Federal System of Autonomous Regions"). The only dilemma with Afghanistan is what should be our approach to the Pashtun people of Afghanistan. Should Pakistan annex the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and destroy the Afghan Taliban along with their recent offensive against the Pakistan Taliban? Or should we support the creation of an independent Pashtun nation that would include both the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan? Is Iran a viable threat to the territorial integrity of Iraq? Perhaps WE should be a threat to the territorial integrity of Iraq and start by creating an independent Pro-American Kurdistan and an independent Shiite nation in the south. This would greatly weaken any Iranian designs on Iraq. With the current internal turmoil in Iran, the Iranian military is not in any position to initiate any wars with neighboring countries. Indeed, with an independent Kurdistan, Iran would have to be very concerned about the breakup of its own nation as the Kurds of Iran (who are currently in rebellion against the central government) would certainly wish to unite with an independent Kurdistan. An independent Shiite nation in southern Iraq would have no desire to be dominated by Iran. Iran would become even more worried about the current insurgency by the Shiite Arabs in the adjoining province of Khuzestan, which produces 90% of Irans petroleum. These Shiite Arabs of Khuzestan identify with their brethren in Iraq, not with Irans central government. Yes, a long term comprehensive strategy for Iraq and Afghanistan is needed. A central feature of this strategy would involve our redrawing the map of the Middle East to insure long term stability in the region.
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post <a href="http://www.thunderrun.us/2009/12/from-front-12222009.html">From the Front: 12/22/2009 </a> News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.