Tom Davis posted this this morning:

I thought Robert Gates was a neocon and MSM reviews of his memoirs seemed to confirm it. I was wrong. This past weekend I read the former defense secretary’s book and was startled to read things like this:

“Wars are a lot easier to get into than out of. Those who ask about exit strategies or question what will happen if assumptions prove wrong are rarely welcome at the conference table when the fire-breathers are demanding that we strike — as they did when advocating invading Iraq, intervening in Libya and Syria, or bombing Iran’s nuclear sites. But in recent decades, presidents confronted with tough problems abroad have too often been too quick to reach for a gun. Our foreign and national security policy has become too militarized, the use of force too easy for presidents.”

Those aren’t the words of a neocon. My apologies, Mr. Gates…

First, I don’t know where Tom ever got the idea that Robert Gates was a neo-anything. Or paleo-, either. As I’ve said so often, Gates was always the most professional of public servants. To label him with any ideology, one you like or don’t like, is to do him a disservice.

That said, I can certainly see what Tom Davis liked about that passage. But I see it as the view of the public servant who has to carry out the policies that the politicians initiate. You can see how such a person might develop a jaundiced view of political machismo.

A word, though, about “exit strategies.” It’s OK if you ask, in private councils, “What’s our exit strategy?” But if your exit strategy is your entire strategy, and most especially if you’re going in with a publicly stated exit strategy — worse, a stated date — then you most certainly should not commit military forces.

Of course, that would be pleasing to Tom, and others of his inclination, such as Rand Paul and, for that matter, Dennis Kucinich and maybe Tom Hayden, back in the day.

If you do commit militarily, then the world — particularly your adversaries — needs to believe that you will stay until your goals are achieved — 100 years, if necessary. Remember how ballistic the anti-war folk went when John McCain said something along those lines about Iraq in 2008? Well, he was right, as recent events demonstrate.

I have a problem with sending people in to get killed in a cause that you are committed to abandoning at a set future time — which is what Americans tend to mean when they say “exit strategy.”