A four year plan?

Mark Steyn looks at the cover story of the Village Voice. "The Eve of Destruction: George W Bush's four-year plan to wreck the world."

Well, since the N-year plan was introduced by the Communist governments, and since none of them ever worked, I feel much better about the state of the world.

The Democrats have been demanding to know, from Condoleeza Rice, or from George Bush, or from anyone who fails to get out of shouting range fast enough, what our "exit strategy" is for Iraq. Steyn doesn't think too much of "exit strategies."

If you want an example of "exit strategy" thinking, look no further than the southern "border." A century ago, American policy in Mexico was all exit and no strategy. That week's president-for-life gets out of hand? Go in, whack him, exit and let the locals figure out who gets to be the new bad guy. If the new guy gets out of hand, go back, whack him and exit again. The result of that stunted policy is that three-quarters of Mexico's population now lives in California and Arizona — and, as fine upstanding members of the Undocumented-American community, they have no exit strategy at all. By contrast, the British went in to India without an "exit strategy," stayed for generations and midwifed the world's most populous democracy and a key U.S. ally in the years ahead. Which looks like the smarter approach now? "Most Indians say 'thumbs up' to second Bush term," reported the Christian Science Monitor this week, "and no, that doesn't mean something rude in Indian culture."

Our foreign policy needs to reflect this. We can't ignore the rest of the world any more.

But everywhere is also Mexico in the more figurative sense — if you have a few hundred bucks and an ATM card, you can come to America and blow it up. Everyone lives next door now. September 11, 2001, demonstrated the paradox of America — the isolationist superpower — was no longer tenable. That was what George W. Bush accomplished so superbly in his speech: the idealistic position — spreading liberty — is now also the realist one. If you don't spread it, in the end your own liberty will be jeopardized.

You know, it's interesting that I'm hearing people complain about that bit of Bush's speech. It's somehow counterproductive to claim that our liberty depends on what happens anywhere else, or to anyone else.

Yet I imagine the same folks who criticize this idea are perfectly happy saying that if we allow the rights of others to be abridged, our own rights are in jeopardy. In more colloquial terms, "what goes around comes around." Bush's policy is to encourage liberty go "go around".

Now who would object to that?