The debate on Iraq is taking a new turn. The Iraqi elections scheduled for Jan. 30, only recently viewed as a culmination, are described as inaugurating a civil war. The timing and the voting arrangements have become controversial. All this is a way of foreshadowing a demand for an exit strategy, by which many critics mean some sort of explicit time limit on the U.S. effort.

We reject this counsel. The implications of the term "exit strategy" must be clearly understood; there can be no fudging of consequences. The essential prerequisite for an acceptable exit strategy is a sustainable outcome, not an arbitrary time limit. For the outcome in Iraq will shape the next decade of American foreign policy. A debacle would usher in a series of convulsions in the region as radicals and fundamentalists moved for dominance, with the wind seemingly at their backs. Wherever there are significant Muslim populations, radical elements would be emboldened. As the rest of the world related to this reality, its sense of direction would be impaired by the demonstration of American confusion in Iraq. A precipitate American withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf Yugoslavia's, and it would be compounded as neighbors escalated their current involvement into full-scale intervention.

_____Today's Op-Eds_____ • Results, Not Timetables, Matter in Iraq (Post, Jan. 25, 2005) • Why Johnny Won't Read (Post, Jan. 25, 2005) • Onward and Upward and . . . (Post, Jan. 25, 2005) • . . . Oh, Never Mind (Post, Jan. 25, 2005) _____What's Your Opinion?_____ • Share Your Views About Editorials and Opinion Pieces on Our Message Boards • About Message Boards _____Free E-mail Newsletters_____ • Today's Headlines & Columnists See a Sample  |  Sign Up Now • Breaking News Alerts See a Sample  |  Sign Up Now