I have a bad feeling about the Trump administration's urge to run for the exits in Afghanistan:
Americans want to be done with the military and economic costs of having troops in Afghanistan. The problem with that attitude is that Americans can leave Afghanistan but Afghanistan won’t leave America. The heroin production will continue and major Islamic terrorist groups will have a sanctuary from which to plan attacks on the Wests, especially the United States.
The cost of maintaining the victory we achieved is trivial in comparison to the cost of winning. Will we really risk a future 9/11 on a grander scale by leaving Afghanistan and counting on the honor of Pakistan or the jihadis, luck, or somebody else to keep America safe from jihadi attacks?
As I noted a quarter century ago in a Land Warfare Paper when reflecting on lessons from Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980:
Not wanting to repeat our experience in Vietnam, many speak of needing an "exit strategy" before committing troops. Such an approach seeks to minimize our losses under the assumption that we will at some point lose, so we had better know when to cut our losses and get out. It also assumes that the situation allows for an exit and that our enemy will allow it. The Iraqis desperately wanted out of the war they initiated in 1980 but were locked by Iran in a death grip that allowed for no easy exit.
Do we really think our Islamist enemies will allow America to disengage from their jihad against us?
Or will the jihadis act on the belief that they have America in a death grip that they will not release as long as they have the strength?
If the latter, America must make sure Afghanistan is one more theater where we kill the SOBs wherever we find them. And I'd rather have local allies--as we achieved at great cost since 2001--helping us instead of hoping drones will be good enough in a deadly game of hide and seek.
