"No" to an exit strategy. "Yes" to a success strategy

BY MARK STEYN, SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

The Democrats' big phrase is "exit strategy." Time and again, their senators demanded that Rice tell 'em what the "exit strategy" for Iraq was. The correct answer is: There isn't one, and there shouldn't be one, and it's a dumb expression. The more polite response came in the president's inaugural address: ''The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.'' Next week's election in Iraq will go not perfectly but well enough, and in time the number of U.S. troops needed there will be reduced, and in some more time they'll be reduced more dramatically, and one day there'll be none at all, just a small diplomatic presence that functions a bit like the old British ministers did in the Gulf emirates for centuries: They know everyone and everything, and they keep the Iraqi-American relationship running smoothly enough that Baghdad doesn't start looking for other foreign patrons. In other words: no exit.MORE

This Democratic focus on an exit strategy has given me great cause for concern also. The US didn't invade Iraq in order to make it a quasi democracy. The US did so as part of the war on terror which includes tansforming the ME. Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia are still in its sights. There will be different solutions for each but there is no way the US is going to get out before the job is done. Bush's inauguration speech confirms this. All the good and hope created or to be created by succeeding in Iraq will be a passing fancy if the US doesn't complete the job of regime change in these other countries. Were they to get out, any and all progress would be lost.

Posted by Ted Belman at January 24, 2005 10:57 AM