Which statement about exit strategy for CA in stabilization missions is accurate?

Which statement about exit strategy for CA in stabilization missions is accurate?

• A. Immediate withdrawal of all personnel with no transition.
• B. A plan to transfer responsibilities to host-nation authorities and partners while ensuring continued stability and capacity.
• C. Replacing host-nation authorities with international staff indefinitely.
• D. Focusing only on military disengagement without governance transfer.

Answer: (B)

Exit strategy in stabilization missions centers on handing over authority to host-nation actors and partners in a way that preserves stability and builds lasting local capacity. This approach ensures continuity of governance, public services, and security so gains aren’t lost when external actors pull back. A well-planned exit includes phased handovers, clear criteria for progression, and ongoing support to ensure local institutions can sustain activities, manage risks, and respond to challenges after the mission ends. It also helps legitimacy and ownership by local authorities and communities, reducing dependence on international staff or external forces. An abrupt withdrawal with no transition would risk creating a governance vacuum and undoing progress. Replacing host-nation authorities with international staff indefinitely undermines local sovereignty and long-term capacity. Focusing only on military disengagement ignores the civil and governance work essential to stability and misses the responsibility to transfer authority and build durable institutions.

Exit strategy in stabilization missions centers on handing over authority to host-nation actors and partners in a way that preserves stability and builds lasting local capacity. This approach ensures continuity of governance, public services, and security so gains aren’t lost when external actors pull back. A well-planned exit includes phased handovers, clear criteria for progression, and ongoing support to ensure local institutions can sustain activities, manage risks, and respond to challenges after the mission ends. It also helps legitimacy and ownership by local authorities and communities, reducing dependence on international staff or external forces.

An abrupt withdrawal with no transition would risk creating a governance vacuum and undoing progress. Replacing host-nation authorities with international staff indefinitely undermines local sovereignty and long-term capacity. Focusing only on military disengagement ignores the civil and governance work essential to stability and misses the responsibility to transfer authority and build durable institutions.