"Exit Strategy" Might Not Be What You Mean

Two years ago, I sat in a DC boardroom discussing conflict resolution tactics with other wonks and federal employees. Iraq and Afghanistan came up, along with many other places that the United States had committed resources--military, economic and civilian (i.e. the people not wearing uniforms). I kept referring to the importance of an "exit strategy"...thinking that it was a consensus term that meant the time when we could pack up our troops and come home. Finally, my friend John, a military officer now deployed to Afghanistan, had enough. He told me to quit saying "exit strategy" because I was contradicting myself if what I wanted was a long-term plan where many skills and resources were provided to places in need. He pointed out that it was wrong because many US security commitments are inclusive now, not only of other nations, but of the people we are helping. Hence he interpreted "exit strategy" as abandonment, of the collective effort and of any US commitment, economic, political or military. What I wanted was our whole government to be involved--with less reliance on the military. I realized that John was right. By my own definition, "exit strategy" is not what I had meant at all.

I think we're at a a similar teachable moment right now. This means we might need to consciously search and replace language that may have been useful and accurate at one point, but is now both politically distorted and no longer adequate to the policy challenge we face in places like Afghanistan. If you don't think the US should be spending any effort there at all, you don't need to read any further. However, if you're feeling queasy about increased military commitment and worried about our strategy, but still feel obligated to help the Afghan people, read on.

Our involvement in Afghanistan has no simple solutions. Moreover, what we decide to do there will impact American security for years to come. Here's the problem: We are considering sending more military resources to fix a threat that--according to our own Defense Department--doesn't have a military solution. But there's a larger challenge here than troop numbers--it is to prevent a totally destabilized region. Doing this will require a substantial and long term commitment (and not only from the USA, but from other countries, and from the Afghans).

Given how much of US foreign policy is carried out by uniformed personnel these days, it might help to concentrate less on how many troops; asking instead what will the troops be doing? General McChrystal is sending a clear message that soldiers will be experiencing a sea-change in how they go about their mission...that this is all part of making the safety of Afghans the first organizing priority. This mission change is a helpful pivot to talk about a larger strategic and urgent issue; the significant imbalance of resources in our government that favors military solutions over non military problem solving. Where is the non-military plan? Can we do this? If not, who can?

At this point, the public has only been told half the story. Which is why the main lens on the strategy dilemma is a military counterinsurgency. Wonky example: It takes years to create a multi-tasking, multi-lingual Special Forces soldier--why would it take any less to create the civilian equivalent? We don't have many of these people right now so the military is subbing in for things that really aren't its job. This lack of capacity should be half the conversation over what to do in Afghanistan. It is one of the reasons there is so much confusion over the distinction between traditional military counter terrorism (CT) options that involve Pakistan where the baddies are Al Qaeda and the more progressive military counterinsurgency options--more focused on stabilizing Afghanistan where the baddies are extremist Taliban.

If you want to see this President succeed, a vocabulary shift is vital. The more public advocates use leftover framing and messaging (especially from 2003-07 opposition to the Iraq war) the easier we make it for the right-wing to do the same. In fact, they are drooling into their keyboards right now anticipating the attack on President Obama--calling him "uninterested" in national security; stomping their feet about a bogus "fight" between the president and the military over Afghanistan; demanding a congressional hearing with General McChrystal so they can manipulate this illusion further.

The key thing to remember here is this: Such attack rhetoric betrays a fundamental ignorance and even disregard for the military's role in government and in American democracy. Conservatives are cynically using the military--they know that people in uniform can't defend themselves with political counter arguments. The US military are professionals. They offer their best judgment and expert advice when asked by their civilian leaders. Civilians make policy. This is a cornerstone in our democratic system. Any responsible President listens to many voices. Hence, the counterinsurgency (40K troops) recommendation from General McChrystal is one possible piece of a national strategy. Not the national strategy. This week, President Obama began a comprehensive review. We should all be rejoicing that we finally have a president that respects the role of the military in American democracy.

There are both political and policy reasons to start using different language to move forward in Afghanistan. Instead of "exit strategy" how about "handoff sequence" or a "relayed civ-mil plan" or even that good ole "division of labor?" Last week in a hearing, Afghanistan expert Clare Lockhart suggested "transition strategy." Other ideas?

 

 

Follow Lorelei Kelly on Twitter: www.twitter.com/loreleikelly

Comments

[hoosier96]

I believe the author is attempting to take a term that the left used repeatedly to admonish Bush and dump it before it can be used IN THE SAME WAY with Obama.

[Roses]

I don't think you stood up for your phrasing enough.
"Exit strategy" just wasn't specific enough. " 'Military' exit strategy" is what you were talking about. That is something that should always be considered when planning.

[henryberry]

Kelly is right in saying that any changes in the conflict against terrorism will be preceded by changes in vocabulary. In this case, terms represent how the U.S. leaders conceive the contest against terrorism and the strategies and tactics most appropriate for this.

Kelly suggests various terminologies for what the U. S. really wants to be doing in winding down its involvement in Afghanistan. In other replies, I have tendered the phrase "defending the United States from terrorism" for the general concept of what the U. S. wants to be doing vis-a-vis terrorists. Terrorism is too opportunistic, protean, unpredictable, and in many cases impulsive for any grandly-scaled, long-term, escalating, and methodical approach. A multi-faceted defense with overlapping elements is the best posture. Any offensive actions should be limited and short-termed, optimally quick. As surprise, elusiveness, and deception are the basic principles of terrorist activity, surprise, readiness, and unpredictability should be the basic principles of response to it.

Thinking about new language as Kelly advises brings on freshened thinking about the threat of terrorism.

[hoosier96]

For McChrystal to say that the safety of Afghan people is the number one priority is ridiculous. This is a war. The number one priority of any war is to kill the enemy. That is how you win.

The surge worked in Iraq. Why wouldn't it work here?

[Oldsop]

No one goes to war with the idea of developing an exit strategy: except pacifists or maybe the surrender-monkey French.

If you go to war it must be to win: that is the only strategy of importance.

[Roses]

Yes.
That's certainly true.....the people who 'want' win the most will hold out.

Certainly a good thing for our strategists to remember when we attack someone's home half-way around the world when most people here could not find Afghanistan on a map.

Good thing to remember..... “You will kill 10 of our men, and we will kill 1 of yours, and in the end it will be you who tire of it.”.......... Ho Chi Minh

[Pablo175]

"The more public advocates use leftover framing and messaging (especially from 2003-07 opposition to the Iraq war) the easier we make it for the right-wing to do the same."

So the left's rhetoric on Iraq was wrong too? Why change rhetoric now?

[sixyfivepercentwater]

"Our involvement in Afghanistan has no simple solutions." That's plain wrong. Our involvement in Afghanistan has one very simple solution, which is not at all simplistic: We need to get the heck out of there, starting yesterday.

I feel no obligation to the people of Afghanistan, and I don't see why anyone should. I see no need to perpetuate the wrong-thinking of past administrations by trying to withdraw slowly, or sideways, or put support measures in place (which will all crumble as soon as we are gone). I see no need to equivocate by leaving mercenaries in place while declaring "our troops are all gone!" and other devious but usual behaviors.

Our involvement in Afghanistan was a huge and horrendous mistake, and it can only be corrected by swift and unilateral action: We must leave. All of us.

[DaveVentura]

"I feel no obligation to the people of Afghanistan, and I don't see why anyone should"

We intentionally destroyed their central government. I don't think it should be US policy to willfully leave anarchy in our wake.

"Our involvement in Afghanistan was a huge and horrendous mistake"

Our LACK OF involvement in Afghanistan was a huge and horrendous mistake, which let the Taliban regroup and Al Queda spread itself around. If the US leaves anarchy in Afghanistan with Al Queda and the Taliban there and more pissed off than ever, then you'll destabilize the region creating problems in Pakistan and India. If on the other hand you said "our involvement in Iraq was a huge and horrendous mistake," that I would agree with you with but again with Iraq I think since we invaded Iraq to intentionally destroy their central government we have an obligation to the Iraqi people not to leave Iraq in anarchy even if it doesn't destabilize the region like Afghanistan would. I think it is immoral to say that the US on one hand can destroy other central governments, but then has no obligation to the people whose central government have been destroyed by us.

[sixyfivepercentwater]

"I don't think it should be US policy to willfully leave anarchy in our wake." Of course it shouldn't be, and no one is saying it should. But when there's no real possibility of a positive outcome, why pretend there is? Either we never leave, and just do more of the same (how's that working?), do something else (what?) or pack up our tents and go home.

If I happened to stick my hand in a wasp's nest, I wouldn't leave it there just so the wasps wouldn't be upset.

[JDM73]

Bertrand Russell made great strides in the philosophical field by rejecting metaphysical gibble-gabble and stressing the importance of clear, understandable language. Military jargon should be revised in a similar fashion: no more "exit strategy", no more "false positives", and "relayed civ-mil plan" certainly has to go. This kind of language clouds understanding, and when people don't understand what's happening, terrible abuses of power can--and do--take place. With regard to Afghanistan, we need to talk about getting out, plain and simple. (And also with regard to Iraq, where 35,000 to 50,000 combat troops will remain after our celebrated withdrawl has ended. No more semantical games! Combat troops are combat troops, even if you call them "advisors" or "transition teams".)

[donojack]

It seems that the author believes that all we need is a better slogan for our efforts in Afghanistan, with the primary objective being to thwart the efforts of the "right wing" to score political points. What we need is not more clever double-speak but a clear strategy based on one principle only: will what we do enhance our security and that of our allies or will it not. If we conclude that it will then we must do our best to calculate the cost to see if it is worth it. We should not spend one more precious life to "help the Afghan people" any more than we should have had as a goal "freeing the Iraqi people from tyranny."

There does need to be a lot of debate about what we want to achieve and how to do it, but what we don't need is more sloganeering.

[lastpost]

"Exit Strategy" Might Not Be What You Mean”

Very true. Anymore than “Engagement Strategy” might be what you mean.

From our very beginnings individuals have “engaged” each other through the medium of hurled rocks. Time now, I suspect, to engage one another through that medium provided by minds.
An opportunity to compare “realities”, up close and personal. And discover exactly what it is, that we do actually mean.

“Our involvement in Afghanistan has no simple solutions.”

Surely you don’t really mean that, do you? Maybe your “illusion” needs “manipulating”.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Since Ms. Kelly is such a stickler for labels and terminology...I'll try to be brief and very clear.

"an obligation to help the Afghan people".....while I have no objection to "helping" people anywhere......this is not quite the way I recall the mission statement in Afghanistan.

The way I recall it, the US went into Afghanistan, with overwhelming public support (though not my own) to KICK THE CRAP out of the people who put those big holes in the Pentagon, that Pennsylvania field, and Lower Manhattan.......to KILL them if at all possible..as well as anybody who was hanging out with 'em ...and, as they say on the street....... anybody who looks like 'em.

The mission has since devolved into a muddle of "nation building" ,...."coun­ter-insugr­ency" as well as propping up one of the most corrupt regimes on the planet. NONE OF WHICH constitute an appropriate task for our military.

Ms. Kelly further suggests that, should Gen.McChrystal get his way,...our troops will undergo a "sea-change" in which the safety of Afghans will be their "first organizing priority"

Excuse me??

Shouldn't the safety of American service personell be our "first organizing priority"???

I very much think so.

So, with respect for Ms.Kelly, her fellow "wonks",.... AND the language.....and to avoid any confusion about "exit strategies" or "abandonment" I'll speak plainly.

U.S.OUT OF AFGHANISTA­N....SUPPO­RT THE TROOPS.....BRING 'EM HOME.......NOW
tm

[NCAV2]

The Afghan people don't want any foreigners in their country, period. The mistake we made was staying there and nation building. Let the Afghan people handle their own problems, we still have many problems in our country that we need to fix before trying to save other countries.

[eciaccio]

How about "Strategic withdrawal from quagmire"?

[William50]

A program for Afghanistan......an interesting idea, a multi thought out program that makes Afghanistan a nation that can protect its people, not deliver top grade drugs to the world.
The idea that American interests are tied up and we have to stay and support every nation in the world is false. The idea that after we destroyed the government that attacked the US and have to rebuild is false. The idea that if we just stay long enough they will grow into a better nation is false. With those falsehoods in place now we can move forward with the idea that America does not have to buy, rebuild nor change political systems. That we can pull our troops out, we can state that they have had elections and now have the right to build the nation they want not the one we put in place.
Is that dangerous? Yes! After all they have not had hundreds of years of new government. They have stayed in a feudal age and no matter what, seem to like that tribal grouping/g­overnment.
All of the great speeches and ideas will fail simply because the people would and will kneel before the next war lord. We have come and we have given them their freedom of choice, the problem is, looking at history, the choice they will make is not freedom but safety.
(The best way to understand this problem is reviewing the history of Africa)
middleamerican2010
Casey

[DelmarkGoldfarb]

What's the latest definition of "dead people" who are killed "for no apparent reason."