Cut And Run Strategy - History

It's a bit disconcerting to hear various leaders talk about how important it is to leave behind a stable government in Afghanistan.

Just how are we going to do that?

Our record of accomplishment in nation building (in other people's nations) isn't all that sterling. We ran the Philippines for half a century, for example, and more than six decades after we turned the government over to the Philippinos, the country has yet to become a showcase of democracy.

That wasn't President McKinley's promise when we decided to occupy the country.

Take Vietnam. We decided in 1946 to assist France in its reoccupation of French Indo-China (as Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia were then called). That didn't turn out well. In 1954, at the time of Dien Bien Phu, President Eisenhower decided against direct intervention, but we provided advisers and lots of equipment. In 1961 Kennedy sent even more advisers and equipment. By 1965, we owned the war.

In 1973, President Nixon withdrew the last American troops. In 1975, North Vietnamese forces conquered the entire country.

Upshot: after thirty years of war, loss of nearly 60,000 US servicemen and millions of Vietnamese lives, we achieved the same outcome that had been available in 1946 at virtually no cost.

There are times when it is best to stop throwing good money (and lives) after bad. But deciding to do so after the nation has made a commitment is hard to do.

Still, withdrawal always has to remain an option. It was Senator Aiken of Vermont, I believe, who advised President Johnson to just "declare victory" and bring the boys (they were mostly male warriors then) home.

Good advice.