EXIT STRATEGIES ARE FOR LOSERS Robert Byrd and Tom Daschle have been thoroughly beat up already for decrying–Byrd explicitly and Daschle implicitly–the Bush administration’s lack of an “exit strategy” in the war on terrorism. Their Democratic colleague Joe Lieberman’s rebuke is the pithiest: “We need a victory strategy, not an exit strategy.” What we also need, though, is an exit strategy for the “exit strategy” clich , which has outlived its usefulness. The problem is, “exit strategies” are for losers. We had dimly remembered that the phrase started out as Biz School jargon. And indeed, the first Nexis mention of it comes in the March 1979/April 1979 issues of the Harvard Business Review in an article called “The Dynamics of Process-Product Life Cycles.” (“The company must now make two kinds of decisions. The first relates to both the entrance and the exit strategies for a specific market . . .”) So basically we’re talking about a concept that began as a highfalutin way to discuss going-out-of-business sales. The term mostly stayed in the business-jargon ghetto for the next decade. It became the euphemism of choice for dismantling unprofitable businesses during the leveraged-buyout craze of the 1980s. And its first documented political use? That distinction belongs to Bob Dole, in his losing 1988 race for the Republican presidential nomination. (“The final margin in Illinois was 19 points, and while Dole went through the motions of carrying on, his mind was on what he had begun to call the ‘exit strategy’–a way to get out with as much leverage and as many options as he could preserve”–Newsweek, Nov. 21, 1988.) Thanks to the debacle in Somalia, “exit strategy” became the foreign policy buzzword of 1993–a favorite phrase of both Secretary of State Warren Christopher and of Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Powell spun it as a synonym for prudence–don’t get into something unless you know how you’re going to get out of it. But it’s really a synonym for an orderly retreat, or, as the Vietnam-era version had it, declaring victory and going home. In any event, the Somalia problem wasn’t about the lack of an “exit strategy”; it was a strategy plain and simple that was lacking. The goal of U.S. foreign policy, not to put a fine point on it, should be to induce panicked discussion of “exit strategies” among our enemies, not to have such discussions ourselves. WARREN BUFFETT ON TERRORISM The annual letter to shareholders by Warren Buffett, chairman of the legendary Berkshire Hathaway conglomerate, is always an event in the business press. This year, because of the corporation’s heavy involvement in the insurance business, it’s worth perusing for its discussion of terrorism and risk. “Insurers have always found it costly to ignore new exposures. Doing that in the case of terrorism, however, could literally bankrupt the industry. No one knows the probability of a nuclear detonation in a major metropolis this year (or even multiple detonations, given that a terrorist organization able to construct one bomb might not stop there). Nor can anyone, with assurance, assess the probability in this year, or another, of deadly biological or chemical agents being introduced simultaneously (say, through ventilation systems) into multiple office buildings and manufacturing plants. An attack like that would produce astronomical workers’ compensation claims. “Here’s what we do know: “a. The probability of such mind-boggling disasters, though likely very low at present, is not zero. “b. The probabilities are increasing, in an irregular and immeasurable manner, as knowledge and materials become available to those who wish us ill. Fear may recede with time, but the danger won’t–the war against terrorism can never be won. The best the nation can achieve is a long succession of stalemates. There can be no checkmate against hydra-headed foes.” Yet another reason to banish talk of “exit strategies.” RETURN OF THE BLOOD LIBEL In support of its broader foreign policy goals and the war on terrorism, the Bush administration is currently conducting a major make-nice outreach campaign with the Arab world–and castigating Israel for its “counterproductive” and “excessive” reaction to the ongoing Palestinian intifada. So to help our readers better understand U.S. interests in the region, The Scrapbook thought it might be worthwhile to go directly to the source. What follows are extended excerpts from an essay by Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faisal University. The piece appeared on March 10 in Al-Riyadh, an official daily newspaper published by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Which is, of course, a major American “ally” in the Middle East. “I choose to [speak] about the Jewish holiday of Purim, because it is connected to the month of March. . . . During this holiday, the Jew must prepare very special pastries, the filling of which is not only costly and rare–it cannot be found at all on the local and international markets. Unfortunately, this filling cannot be left out, or substituted with any alternative serving the same purpose. For this holiday, the Jewish people must obtain human blood so that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries. . . . “The blood is spilled in a special way. How is it done? For this holiday, the victim must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew–that is, a Christian or a Muslim. His blood is taken and dried into granules. The cleric blends these granules into the pastry dough; they can also be saved for the next holiday. In contrast, for the Passover slaughtering . . . the blood of Christian and Muslim children under the age of 10 must be used, and the cleric can mix the blood before or after dehydration. “Let us now examine how the victims’ blood is spilled. For this, a needle-studded barrel is used; this is a kind of barrel, about the size of the human body, with extremely sharp needles set in it on all sides. [These needles] pierce the victim’s body, from the moment he is placed in the barrel. These needles do the job, and the victim’s blood drips from him very slowly. Thus, the victim suffers dreadful torment–torment that affords the Jewish vampires great delight as they carefully monitor every detail of the blood-shedding with pleasure and love that are difficult to comprehend. “After this barbaric display, the Jews take the spilled blood . . . and the Jewish cleric makes his coreligionists completely happy on their holiday when he serves them the pastries in which human blood is mixed. “There is another way to spill the blood: The victim can be slaughtered as a sheep is slaughtered, and his blood collected in a container. Or, the victim’s veins can be slit in several places, letting his blood drain from his body. . . .” We trust Vice President Cheney has been enjoying his Middle East tour. DAVID ALLEN COOLIDGE JR., 1956-2002 Readers will remember the byline of David Coolidge, which, sadly, will not grace these pages again. His writings for us constituted an extended argument in defense of traditional marriage, and against the fashionable project of redefining marriage to include same-sex unions. As you might imagine of a man who tackled this subject with unbending principle, he was uncommonly brave. We are proud to have published him, and devastated that he has parted from us so young.
