Thursday, May 17, 2007

EXIT STRATEGY: A Delightful Little Proposition for Gen. Lute!

While reading the Washington Post's morning commentary on the appointment of a "War Czar" it occurred to me there's a delightful solution to many of the West's present problems. Bear with me a moment while I lay some foundation.

A little over a year ago, in the Boston Review, Barry Posen penned a thoughtful piece on an exit strategy for Iraq. In it he said:
The United States needs a new strategy in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. The war is at best a stalemate; the large American presence now causes more trouble than it prevents. We must disengage from Iraq—and we must do it by removing most American and allied military units within 18 months. Though disengagement has risks and costs, they can be managed. The consequences would not be worse for the United States than the present situation, and capabilities for dealing with them are impressive, if properly employed.

Some people argue that the United States should disengage because the war was a mistake in the first place, or because it is morally wrong. I do not propose to pass judgment on these questions one way or the other. My case for disengagement is different: it is forward-looking and based on American national interests. The war as it has evolved (and is likely to evolve) badly serves those interests. A well-planned disengagement will serve them much better by reducing military, economic, and political costs.
According to Wikipedia an "exit strategy" is, in general:
... a means of escaping one's current situation, typically an unfavourable situation. An organization or individual without an exit strategy may be in a quagmire. At worst, an exit strategy will save face; at best, an exit strategy will peg a withdrawal to the achievement of an objective worth more than the cost of continued involvement.
In military terms it is:
... understood to minimize what military jargon calls blood and treasure (lives and matériel).
Now one additional little tidbit ...

In a piece
on John Bolton, our former unconfirmed UN Ambassador, entitled "We must attack Iran before it gets the bomb," Toby Harnden wrote for the Telegraph:
A nuclear Iran would be as dangerous as “Hitler marching into the Rhineland” in 1936 and should be prevented by Western military strikes if necessary, according to a leading hawk who recently left the Bush administration.

Former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said Iran should be attacked before it develops nuclear weapons John Bolton has close links to the Bush administration

John Bolton, who still has close links to the Bush administration, told The Daily Telegraph that the European Union had to "get more serious" about Iran and recognise that its diplomatic attempts to halt Iran's enrichment programme had failed. [HT: Black Kettle]
Go here to see why Norm Podhorertz, writing in Commentary Magazine, concurs with Bolton.

A DELIGHTFUL PROPOSITION: Let's take care of Im-In-Need-A-Job and his bomb and the need for an exit strategy all in one fell swoop ... making Lt. General Lute a hero at the same time ... let's just exit Iraq by way of Tehran on the way to an ally's border.

Some may think I am being factious but, what with Western Civilization's future hanging by a toasted frog's whisker, I'm deadly serious. Let's just send the Air Force over Tehran and prepare an exit strategy for our men and women on the backs of as many Shias as we can find.

No comments:

Post a Comment