"We're Not Looking For An Exit Strategy. We're Looking For Victory."

By Mike Allen, James Carney

In the sitting room of his official residence last Wednesday, Vice President Dick Cheney sat down with TIME's Mike Allen and James Carney for a rare print interview. Excerpts:

o What do you think a Democratic Congress would be like?

I don't expect that to happen. I'm optimistic that we're going to hold both the House and the Senate. One of the things I talk about on the campaign trail is the importance of what we've been able to do with tax policy. How our changes in tax policy--especially in '03--stimulated a recovery that's generated 6.6 million new jobs. Just today, the Dow broke through the 12,000 mark, first time ever for the Dow Jones industrial. I think a lot of that goes back to what we were able to do with cutting taxes on investments, on dividends and cap gains and so forth. All of that is at risk if there were to be a Democratic Congress.

o How badly do you think the Mark Foley scandal has hurt Republican candidates?

I don't think it's hurt our candidates generally. Obviously, it's a terrible situation. I think appropriate action has been taken. Investigations are under way to find out what happened. The place where it's likely to have an impact, clearly, would be in Foley's district. But beyond that, I don't sense that it's the kind of issue that has an impact on Wyoming or California or Texas.

o How long do you think it will be before the average American sees going to Iraq as a good idea?

I think that will all depend upon the final outcome. It's difficult for people to judge week to week. I think we've done the right thing. I think we're doing the right thing now. I firmly believe that. The President firmly believes it. I think the world is better off with Saddam Hussein in jail, on trial, than in power. Right next door today in Iran you've got Mr. Ahmadinejad off and running trying to develop nuclear weapons. The only thing that would be more volatile is if you also had Saddam Hussein trying to develop nuclear weapons in Baghdad. Establishing a democratic government, getting rid of the old regime, closing down a major state sponsor of terror, shutting off Saddam Hussein's practice of making payments to the families of suicide bombers--we've done good work to get this far. We've got more to do. It's going to be tough to finish the task, but I think it's very important that we complete the task.

o Do you think that in your lifetime going to Iraq will be widely seen as visionary?

I do. I don't see any way you can argue, for example, that what happens in Iraq isn't going to have an impact on Musharraf in Pakistan or Karzai in Afghanistan. The key to a workable strategy in that part of the world against al-Qaeda, and the Islamic radicals that we're at war with, is to get the locals into the fight. They've got to take responsibility for their own governments, for their own security. That's what's happened in Afghanistan and in Pakistan, where having them working with us in the intelligence arena to capture and kill al-Qaeda has been absolutely essential. Same thing in Saudi Arabia.

If we were to do what some of the Democrats want, withdraw from Iraq, you could imagine what happens to a man like Karzai or Musharraf, who in effect puts his life on the line every day when he goes to work; the hundreds of thousands of men in Afghanistan and Iraq who signed on for the security forces to fight on our side, in effect, against the evil ones; the overall attitude of the millions of people in Afghanistan and Iraq who have gone to the polls and risked their own lives in order to vote and participate in newly created democracies, and suddenly the United States says, Well, gee, it's too tough in Iraq, we're going home. You cannot separate out Iraq from that broader global war on terror. Bin Laden has made the point repeatedly that Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror.

o But hasn't he made that point because we're there? If we weren't there, would he be making that point?

The fact of the matter is we are there, and it is the central struggle at this point. The terrorists' only strategy is to break our will. They can't beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. They go back, and they cite evidence of Beirut in 1983 and Somalia in 1993, when they killed Americans and then Americans withdrew. They think we don't have the stomach for the fight. For us to do what the Democrats--some Democrats--have suggested in Iraq would simply validate that strategy, would simply say to al-Qaeda, You're right. And all it would do is encourage more of the same.

o Isn't what's happening in Iraq, though, not about al-Qaeda principally but about sectarian war?

There's no question that there is sectarian violence now, but remember how we got to sectarian violence: al-Qaeda. That was their strategy: to kill Shia until they could generate some kind of a response. And the lesson we should have learned with 9/11 is that there may have been a time in our history when we could withdraw behind our borders and be safe and secure here at home. That day passed on 9/11. When we saw the damage that a handful of men could do--trained in the remote training camps of Afghanistan, aided and abetted by a planning cell in Hamburg, Germany, and ending up here killing 3,000 Americans that morning--and when we think of the ultimate threat of deadlier weapons than they had that day, the idea that we can turn our back on the Middle East and walk away from a state that could conceivably become a safe haven for terrorists or another area where they can train and plot and plan, that went out the window on 9/11.

o There's a lot of talk that the Iraq Study Group led by James Baker will provide the Administration after the election with an exit strategy from Iraq.

I know what the President thinks. I know what I think. And we're not looking for an exit strategy. We're looking for victory. And victory will be the day when the Iraqis solve their political problems and are up and running with respect to their own government, and when they're able to provide for their own security. How we get to that objective is what we need to keep in mind. Our strategy hasn't changed. Our tactics change from time to time, and they have to adapt and adjust. We're eager to have thoughts and ideas from experienced people in terms of how we can move forward, in having the Baker-Hamilton group go put fresh eyes on the problem and take a look at it.

o If you had to take back any one thing you've said about Iraq, what would it be?

I thought that the elections that we went through in '05 would have had a bigger impact on the level of violence than they have, I guess. I expressed the sentiment some time ago that I thought we were over the hump in terms of violence. I think that was premature.

o Do you think we'll have a military draft in your lifetime?

I don't believe so. I'm a great believer in the all-volunteer force. It produces a very, very high-caliber military. People are serving because they want to serve. We preserve the Selective Service system in the event there were to be some catastrophic conflict that would require putting [nearly] 20 million people in uniform like we did in World War II, but I don't foresee at this stage the likelihood of that.

o Now that you're a wartime Vice President, do you regret not having served in the military?

No. I don't go back and look at those decisions. I've spent a lot of time over the years on these issues. But I'm 65. I'd like to go back and do it all over again, but I made the choices I made.

o In light of the North Korean tests, is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty [NPT] system in trouble?

So far, I would say I've been generally pleased with the way in which the international community has come together in the last week or two after the test by North Korea. The Chinese have been vital in that process, and I think they've undergone a significant transformation in terms of how they look at the problem. The ultimate test, though, will be whether or not we can complete the task of the denuclearization, if you will, of the Korean peninsula and also get the Iranians to come into compliance with their obligations under the NPT and give up their aspirations to build nuclear weapons.

o Why not run for President? You're younger than John McCain.

I've got a lot of miles on me. [Laughs.]

o What do you think you and Mrs. Cheney will do after you leave office?

I don't have any idea. I'll be 68. I still have a few good years left, and I expect we'll spend time with family. Still got a lot of rivers I haven't fished.

To read the full interview with the Vice President, go to time.com/cheney