Stay the course?

The President likes to use the phrase "Stay the Course" as if it were an unassailable reason to continue a policy of failure in Iraq. It seems to me that there are times when you want to stay the course and times when you wish to change the course.

For instance, you might want to change the course if you are following a man that has leapt off a tall building. You might want to change your course if you are steaming towards the precipice of a waterfall. You might want to change your course if you inadvertently find yourself in an angry bull's pasture.

I want to argue that you "Stay the Course" when there is a high probability that doing so will achieve the goals which shaped the course, without incurring losses unacceptable for your gains.

The goals which we are striving for are hard to pin down, but today appear to be the creation of a peaceful, free, and democratic Iraq. The original goals which set us on our course were: smoking out Osama Bin Laden, removing fleets of unmanned Ariel vehicles, removing tons of Sarin gas, Mustard gas, and Anthrax, removing mobile biological weapons labs, removing a nuclear arsenal, and of course removing Saddam Hussein himself from power.

The losses we are incurring as we go are killed and wounded American soldiers, killed and wounded Iraqi civilians, billions of dollars expended, and international pariah status for ourselves.

The task of making Iraq safe for democracy is not so clear-cut and is somewhat subjective. However, I want to argue that Iraqi perception of our presence is critically important to our likely success.

And...

Based upon news reports and interviews with Iraqis it seems that their access to water, gas, and electricity is unpredictable and measurably worse than it was under Saddam Hussein. Many cannot find jobs. In many places the sewers aren't working. Many Iraqis argue that while Saddam was a brute and they are happy to be rid of him, that so far they experience more unpredictable danger in their daily lives under our occupation. That is, they considered Saddam to be a predictable danger and our presence there an unpredictable danger. At best I would say they are ambivalent about us, patient and hopeful but not happy with their current lot in life.

Unless we want to spend all our time trying to put out forest-fires of anti-occupation activity then we need to generate conditions succulent for democracy to flourish, namely Iraqi cooperation. In fact, I argue that if the Iraqi people fight against our goals then democracy is unobtainable by its' very definition (government of the people, for the people, by the people). And that means, as Donald Rumsfailed succinctly said, we want to win Iraqi hearts and minds.

Well...

Are we winning Iraqi hearts and minds when Abu Ghraib is still open for business?

Are we winning Iraqi hearts and minds when we shoot at an unarmed, wounded prisoner in a mosque?

Are we winning Iraqi hearts and minds when we use interrogation techniques offensive to their religion?

Are we winning Iraqi hearts and minds when we build permanent bases on Iraqi soil?

Are we winning Iraqi hearts and minds when we smash ancient cities like Fallujah?

I argue that nothing is more important to our goal than to change the course which led to the events listed above. If the current culture is allowed to continue then we will not succeed because the people of Iraq will abandon us, and once that happens we will have to choose between governing like Saddam (with fear) or going.