programmer, the people of the sovereign, functioning, Westphalian nation-state of Iraq, through their legitimately elected representatives, to declare victory by either teling us to hit the road or agreeing to a Status Of Forces Agreement.

Exit Strategies are Clintonian weasel words for how to retreat from unpopular, questionably legitimate Operations Other Than War in places of no critical strategic interest, where intolerance for casualties makes Force Protection a higher priority than Mission Accomplishment.

By definition, the term biases discussion in favor of foreign military commitments that can be terminated easily and against those that appear more open-ended. By making an exit strategy a prerequisite for the deployment of troops, neoisolationists preempt consideration of some worthwhile operations, allowing a general rule rather than specific arguments to do their work for them. Some of the missions that would have failed to meet such a standard include American participation in NATO, the post-armistice defense of South Korea, the post-Camp David peacekeeping in the Sinai, and the post-Gulf War containment of Iraq-not to mention the stated U.S. intention to maintain 100,000 troops in Asia. Indeed, an exit strategy in Asia would contradict the very purpose of the American presence there.

By emphasizing lockstep adherence to original plans and precise cost and time estimates, the idea of an exit strategy contributes to a false notion that military interventions are mechanical tasks like building a new kitchen, rather than strategic contests marked by friction and uncertainty.

“Bragging rights” are critical in JUDGING who was right and who was wrong, who stuck to their guns and who ran, or tried to run, who supported the mission and who undermined it, who had balls and who was a pussy, who has earned the right to be heard and who should STFU.

“Bragging rights” = victory in the War of Ideas.