...Stage Right

It was deemed a relatively partisan agenda for awhile, but now it can no longer be denied: Congress wants an exit strategy.

Now I realize that there are arguments against doing this, so let's address the big one: Empowering the Bad Guys.

Before I start, let me go out on a limb and say I think your average person just wants an idea: here's how we are going to reduce our forces, here's how we're going to put the Iraqis back in charge of securing their own country, here's what needs to stay and what needs to come with us. Dates aren't crucial right now (although they could help). Just a sense that some thought has been put into this; that this isn't being planned like someone plans their commute to work.

That said: if there is a plan in place, how is that making the terrorists stronger? Everybody knows there will be an exit strategy; the President and the military have admitted that much. By staying in Iraq after saying mission accomplished, saying things like "bring 'em on," ignoring having problems like the one at Abu Ghraib, that's what's "empowering the bad guys."

Having an exit strategy isn't saying "We give up. You win." It's saying, "We've done our job; you've lost." It's confirming that we did what we came to do; whether that was evicting Saddam, free Iraq, or promote democracy in the Middle East.

Of course, if you didn't believe those are the reasons we went there in the first place (I remember something about WMDs being the primary issue) then an exit strategy exposes the doubts about going to war. Because if the reason we went there is truly unknown or unacknowledged, how can we determine if our endeavor has been successful? How can we have a competent exit strategy when our entry strategy was so questionable?

If a war is justifiable, then an exit strategy should be a formality, not a debate.