The problem this “exit strategy” underlines is the hold the mutant version of the Powell Doctrine has on the leadership of the Democratic Party.

The “old” circa 1991 Powell Doctrine relied on: a. overwhelming domestic political support; b. a clear military objective; c. a clear timetable for the end of military action; and d. an “exit strategy.”

This in reaction to the Vietnam War, where the Pentagon felt used by a White House that failed to define their military objective or rally domestic support.

The “new” Powell Doctrine relies on: a. unanamous domestic AND foreign political support; b. a clear and limited military objective; c. a rigid timetable for the end of military action; and d. an “exit strategy” leading to the end of US involvement in less than two years.

This is a recipe for inaction, which is exactly what the Democratic Party wants, leaving military action to “bomb and forget” episodes like Sudan. Dems have already complained that the War on Terror has consumed resources and attention that could be and should be better focused at home, and erodes civil liberties. Beinart’s article about a “Fighting Faith” that links the efforts to secure our country abroad by fighting tyrannies that threaten us with reform at home seems sensible; however it would threaten sacred cows within the Party which is why Bush and the Reps will act without any serious audit or alternative.

Sacred Cows? 1. Boots on the ground and US Servicemen dying is evil, no matter what; 2. Guerrilla warfare can NEVER be won; 3. Military force is useless and self-defeating, negotiations and/or sanctions work better; 4. There is no evil (save the US Gov’t), only misunderstood or oppressed peoples/leaders; 5. Our security problems stem from people/regimes/organizations being “angry with us” rather than not fearing consequences of attacking us.

Sadly, the Party is just not serious about putting these sacred cows out to pasture.