"I'm amazed by how thinking about war has been warped in recent years. Our nation has never fought a successful war that had "exit strategies" or "timetables" that, if not met, would signal quitting in the middle."

Well, our "exit strategy" for Iraq is get to point of Iraq being able to maintain it's own security with potential of Iraq being an ally to fight the war against terrorism.

This seems reasonable. We could have higher hopes, but it seems it's better to focus on this and use this "exit strategy" to remind us not to get sidetrack in more "wonderful ideas" or other "ambitions". As an example, by having this "exit strategy" it allows us to be less concerned about any possibility of using Iraq as a US military base to be used to defeat Iran or generally project US power in the region. Maybe Iraq will become a NATO member, maybe Iraq will want a strong US presence in Iraq. But it's possible that the US may not want Iraq being NATO member and/or it's possible that US may not want to have strong presence in Iraq. So, having a exit strategy allows us to be less likely to make any major mistakes and allows us to quickly get to the point of winning that part of the war against terrorism.

And it's not true that US hasn't in the past had exit strategies. President Lincoln had a "exit strategy"- preserve the union. He also managed to free blacks, but it wasn't the exit strategy, but instead it was a tactical move in the larger battlefield.