Cut and Run

 
"Cut and run" is straight talk for a military strategy otherwise known as "strategic redeployment" or "tactical victory." In some circles it's called "defeat" but that's a little too close to the truth to be acceptable.

The cut and run strategy means withdrawing all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. Not next year, and not next month. Tomorrow would be good. I'd vote for that.

Why should our troops stay in the Middle East? The most common argument in favor of continued occupation is that we broke Afghanistan and Iraq and it's now up to us to stay there and fix them (The Pottery Barn Rule).

This is a strange argument if you think about it for more than a second—a length of time that seems to just about cover the average attention span of neocon war hawks. What we've done in Afghanistan and Iraq is to destabilize those countries by removing a strong central government that provided peace and security to the majority of their citizens—albeit, at the expense of freedom and, in many cases, lives. Not perfect but better than what they've got today. That's why 80% of Iraqis preferred the life they had before the invasion (Iraqis say they were better off under rule of Saddam Hussein).

By staying there and propping up a Quisling "democracy" that's incapable of maintaining law and order, we are encouraging and protecting the local warlords and private militia. We are creating an environment that promotes a low-level civil war that will never produce a victory for either side. In other words, our troops might be contributing to the problem, not the solution. Furthermore, the Pottery Barn Rule runs counter to the stated goal of the invasions, which were supposed to allow the citizens to choose their own form of government. They own it; they should fix it.

The proper strategy is to withdraw. Cut your loses and get out as fast as possible. That's the only honorable way out of a losing strategy. Just like Vietnam. If we don't leave now, we'll be having this debate a year from now, only the countries will be even more broken. (I said the same thing a year ago, and I expect to be saying it in 2008 and 2009 and ....)

Thousands of allied soldiers died during the invasions and the subsequent occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq. Many people are opposed to the idea to admitting we made a mistake because of the extreme sacrifices that these soldiers have made. They ask the tough question, "Does this mean that all those men and women died in vain?"

Yes. That's one of the unfortunate consequences of making a bad decision. While there was some justification for invading Afghanistan in 2001, we have overstayed our welcome and it's time for the Afghanis to settle their own internal squabbles.

But there was never any rational justification for invading Iraq. Most of us know that by now. Everyone who has died there has died in vain—including tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. It's sad to have to admit this, especially when talking to the friends and loved ones of fallen soldiers, but pretending it ain't so isn't going to help. You can't use the fact that soldiers died unnecessarily as an excuse to send more troops into battle.