More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Tony Blankley

Tony Blankley

Posted: November 17, 2009 10:45 AM

To Die for an Exit Strategy

What's Your Reaction?

In the past few days, the White House has made it clear that the president wants specific exit strategies for all his Afghan war options. That brought to mind the advice almost a century ago of an American geopolitician describing the only exit strategy worth considering:

Over there, over there

Send the word, send the word,

Over there

That the Yanks are coming,

The Yanks are coming,

The drums rum tumming every

where

So prepare,

Say a prayer

Send the word,

Send the word to beware

We'll be over, we're coming over.

And we won't be back till it's

over over there!

The geopolitician in question, of course, was that great Irish-American, Tin Pan Alley's own George M. Cohan. And by quoting his lyrics to World War I's most popular song, I don't mean to be frivolous. But millions of young men were prepared to risk their lives -- to not come back "till it's over over there" -- because they were called to fight for something our nation considered vital. Those farm boys didn't know about foreign policy, but they trusted their parents and their leaders not to send them off for no good reason.

Hearing the president's request for exit strategies at the beginning of what would be "his" Afghan war -- and thinking of our young troops, 18, 19, 20, 21 years old who have volunteered to risk their lives for America -- how on God's good Earth can we ask those wonderful kids to risk dying for an exit strategy?

I have heard from a few of them, and they are game to make a fight of it if their country believes it's necessary. Of course they will obey all their orders and commands. But what a cold and heartless command: to send our generation's "Yanks" off to risk their young lives just to prepare to retreat (i.e. exit).

The administration is making its intentions quite clear. Over the weekend, top Obama administration officials went on television to "lower the bar for success" in Afghanistan, stressing that the administration is seeking an exit strategy and holds "no illusions" (Fox News).

"We have no illusions. This is not the prior days when people would come on your show and talk about how we were going to help the Afghans build a modern democracy and build a more functioning state and do all of these wonderful things," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told ABC's "This Week."

On another Sunday show, the president's top political adviser, David Axelrod, explained that "obviously we cannot make an open-ended commitment. And we want to do this in a way that maximizes our efforts against al Qaeda, but within the framework of bringing our troops home at some point."

We have to watch our pennies, too. As the Saturday New York Times reported:

While President Obama's decision about sending more troops to Afghanistan is primarily a military one, it also has substantial budget implications that are adding pressure to limit the commitment, senior administration officials say.

Even the great Cohan could not write a song that would give life and passion and hope to such flatulent, cynical comments.

Three months ago in the Washington Times, I wrote:

President Obama is on the cusp of a fateful policy decision. He has argued consistently that the war in Afghanistan is necessary to deny al Qaeda a base of terrorist operations and to stop the Taliban insurrection from destabilizing nuclear Pakistan. ... [But] even the optimists now believe that a successful counterinsurgency in Afghanistan (and needed as much in Pakistan) will require several years of sustained commitment, with substantially more men and materiel. ... To have a reasonable chance at success, Mr. Obama will have to sustain the effort for years, which will require him to be at least as determined and stubborn on behalf of this war as former President George W. Bush was in fighting the Iraq war.

Now, three agonizing, rationalizing, equivocating, twisting, turning months of White House squirming later -- even a blind man could see that this president, and this White House staff, do not have the stomach to continue the war in Afghanistan. They are trying to avoid it. They don't want to fight it. They think they have great things to do here at home. They know they don't have anything they want to do in Afghanistan.

If the Taliban and al Qaeda retake Afghanistan, the world (and America) will have hell to pay for the consequences. But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan. So they shouldn't try. The price will be high for whatever foreign policy failures we will endure in the next three years. Let's not add to that price the pointless murder of our finest young troops in a war their leader does not believe in.

Bring them home. We'll need them later.

Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take to Survive and Win in the 21st Century" (Regnery, 2009) and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:14 PM on 11/18/2009
Ironies abound when the Heritage Foundation starts plagiarising John Kerry.
09:17 AM on 11/18/2009
It would be insane NOT to have an exit strategy at this point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mrfreeze
A Disciple of Nietzsche
04:32 PM on 11/17/2009
I've been listening to Tony Blankley (and the other chickenhawk know-nothings at the Heritage Foundation) for years. He lives in a one dimensional world that always ends in a zero sum game. Of course the "winner" is a pie-in-the-sky, Ayn Randish utopia for the rich.

If he, or any other conservatives care to come clean, they should acknowledge that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were conceived and executed by cowards and now that things aren't going well, they would rather shift the blame to the current Administration which is trying its best to clean up their mess.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stew66
04:26 PM on 11/17/2009
Aren't there plenty of conservative blogs for this stuff?
04:07 PM on 11/17/2009
"But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan. So they shouldn't try." -- Totally agree... if this is a quote from 2001.
03:51 PM on 11/17/2009
Tony,

It's way past time to stop pretending this thing just started. We've been occupying the place for eight years, Tony. Drop the charade if you want to have a serious discussion about it.
03:32 PM on 11/17/2009
Instead of blaming President Obama for dithering, why doesn't the Republican party take the lead on the Afghan strategy by introducing a bill that re-institutes draft and increases the taxes to pay for the war. After all, according to you, every true patriot will support it. Put your money where your mouth is.
03:31 PM on 11/17/2009
"But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan."

Maybe you could expand on your definition of the victory, otherwise the view you present seems rather shallow and simplistic. Nowhere, including this country, had a functioning democracy been built by an outside military force. It only comes as a cultural, evolutionary achievement, a realization, rebellion by the people themselves who are ready for it. It comes as a result of the economic forces driving the society, because democratic societies are more productive and competitive. Trying to instill democratic values in a society ravaged by tribal wars for generations, in essence, a corrupt criminal enterprise without any democratic institutions or respect for the rule of law will lead nowhere. Our best strategy is to acknowledge the reality and pull out, while keeping the counter-terrorism aspect in place (drone attacks on hi-profile targets). While I am disappointed that President Obama refused to consider an immediate draw-down of our troops in Afghanistan, I am encouraged by his insistence on a sound exit strategy. This war will not be won militarily. But leading our troops in a blind fight for an impossible goal without any regard for the facts on the ground is not something that a true leader does, but a fanatic. We had one in office for the last 8 years and enough is enough.
02:53 PM on 11/17/2009
Sounds a little bit like Vietnam and nowadays effort to rewrite history. it is just not that simple. Afghanistan is just not as willing to comply with western standards that the majority cannot understand. Afghanistan might have been a war that could have had some justification and then Iraq happened. These events do change your options eight year after it began. At the end of WWII, German soldiers were bombarded with non factual news and slogans of endurance. "Durchhalteparolen" it is in German. It did not make sense. There was a shattered army, a propaganda machine that more and more visibly contradicted reality. We know that there are problems with mental health, family and battle fatigue. We know that this is not a conventional war - I am still amazed about how wars are declared conventional when every fiber in my body cringes - Americans should know from their own history, that a guerrilla strategy gave them country and independence from the British. I find it rather disingenuous to shout from the "home front" where it is safe: fight on: "fight on to final victory." Nobody wins a war, not a single soldier an economy or a nation. Who gains most of this war a profiteers, a corrupt government, sub contractors. What is more important to us? Somebody explain to me the forward defense strategy, introduced by Pres. Reagan as a moral excuse to attack a foreign country and not call it attack, just because it might prevent another war?
Deftguy
I train people and rehabilitate dogs
02:32 PM on 11/17/2009
I do not want to see any of our men fighting a war with their hands tied. This kind of war, with the enemy able to fire and then blend into the populous is very dangerous for our troops. This war needs to be fought with air power, but civilians are in danger with this approach. Then you have the second most corrupt government in place, and a country of people unwilling to help themselves. I see no win, and I would ask for an exit strategy as well. There is no way to win this with guns and bombs, and the Taliban is not our enemy, Al Queda is.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Subterfuge
02:28 PM on 11/17/2009
- "If the Taliban and al Qaeda retake Afghanistan, the world (and America) will have hell to pay for the consequences."

Prove it.
02:04 PM on 11/17/2009
"But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan."

Victory? What victory? What a shallow and simplistic view you have on this incredibly complex subject. Nowhere, including this country, had a functioning democracy been built by an outside military force. It only comes as a cultural, evolutionary achievement, a realization, rebellion by the people themselves who are ready for it. It comes as a result of the economic forces driving the society, because democratic societies are more productive and competitive. Trying to instill democratic values in a society ravaged by tribal wars for generations, in essence, a corrupt criminal enterprise without any democratic institutions or respect for the rule of law will lead nowhere. Our best strategy is to acknowledge the reality and pull out, while keeping the counter-terrorism aspect in place (drone attacks on hi-profile targets). While I am disappointed that President Obama refused to consider an immediate draw-down of our troops in Afghanistan, I am encouraged by his insistence on a sound exit strategy. This war will not be won militarily. But leading our troops in a blind fight for an impossible goal without any regard for the facts on the ground is not something that a true leader does, but a fanatic. We had one in office for the last 8 years and enough is enough.
02:04 PM on 11/17/2009
Tony Tony Tony, to die for an exit strategy? really.

what about to die for a useless war
01:49 PM on 11/17/2009
so tony, when is over over there going to be....you neo-cons talk the talk...but never walk the walk....what unit did you serve in in nam?.. or chaney , or bolton or the rest of the bright bulbs who created this mess...you are right about one thing.....there is no objective there that is worth one american life....comparing nation states wars like WWI to the current state of affairs is foolish and without merit....different times merit different analysis....to bad LBJ didn't think about an exit...may have save thousands of american lives.......
01:45 PM on 11/17/2009
"But this president and this White House do not have it in them to lead our troops to victory in Afghanistan."

Victory? What victory? What a shallow and simplistic view you have on this incredibly complex subject. Nowhere, including this country, had the functioning democracy been built by an outside military force. The proliferation of democratic principals comes as a cultural, evolutionary achievement, a realization, rebellion supported by the Afghan people themselves when they are ready for it. Democratic equality comes as a result of the economic forces driving the society, because democratic societies are more productive and competitive. Trying to instill democratic values in a society ravaged by tribal wars for generations, essentially a corrupt criminal enterprise, without any history of democratic institutions or respect to the rule of law will lead nowhere. Our best strategy is to acknowledge the reality and pull out, keeping the counterterrorism aspect of the program intact. While I am disappointed that Obama refused to consider an draw down of our forces in Afghanistan , I am very encouraged by his insistence on having a sound exit strategy.
03:43 PM on 11/17/2009
Nowhere, including this country, had the functioning democracy been built by an outside military force.

Except Japan and Germany.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
silverball
04:42 PM on 11/17/2009
...and their WILLINGNESS to become a democracy...try comparing apples to apples, not apples to oranges........and, if you haven't realized, they are a bit different from afganistan and iraq...WE are the invaders now.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
editorLA
08:11 PM on 11/17/2009
News Flash Dude: Japan and Germany were ALREADY democracies before World War II.

However, they got taken over by RIGHT WING CRAZIES.

Sound familiar?