Stay Which Course?

The New York Times reported today that President Bush will no longer use the phrase "stay the course" in connection with the United States' presence in Iraq.

The President is quoted as saying "Stay the course means keeping doing what you're doing....My attitude is, don't do what you're doing if it's not working: change....Stay the course also means don't leave before the job is done. And that's - we're going to get the job done in Iraq. And it's important that we do get the job done in Iraq."

Huh?

Exegesis aside, the problem with Iraq is we have never bothered to define nouns. What job? What course?

Without revisiting the debate about why we invaded Iraq at length, I recall that we wanted to divest Sadaam Hussein of his WMDs and end his support of terrorism. Thus, the goal was to capture Sadaam. Then we could hunt down the weapons and the terrorists. We've done that. Sadaam rails at his enemies, past and present, from the courtroom dock, incapable of supporting international or homegrown terrorism. Whatever WMDs were in Iraq are gone. What was not considered and what is now not being effectively dealt with is what to do with Iraq after we got Sadaam.

So again, what is the job; and, having defined the job, what is the course that will complete the job? I suspect that President Bush doesn't know and I know that I and a lot of people in the United States don't know.

For awhile the job seemed to be to establish a stable Iraqi government. The course was to establish a constitution, elect representatives, train troups and police and turn over governing and security to the representatives, troops and police. The constitution and government are in place but ineffective. The troops and police are in place but in "control" in two of eighteen provinces. Violence is on the rise throughout Iraq as ethnic and religious factions escalate attacks on each other and us. What to do?

Well we'll leave the job the same, we'll just change the course (we won't call it that, we'll just do it). We won't "cut and run." We'll set up a flexible timetable, not for withdrawal, but for the Iraqis to get their act together. We'll set "milestones." We'll create "benchmarks." Ah, we'll make the job the Iraqi's responsibility. When they fail, and as we measure such things, they will, it won't be our fault. Look at all the time, money and lives we invested (or wasted, depending on your viewpoint). We couldn't have done more for them.

When the dust settles and a totalitarian government (or maybe three) is in place, again, in Iraq, where will we be? Fighting WMDs in North Korea. Fighting terrorists, again, in Afganistan. Rattling sabers at Iran for supporting the bad guys and maybe thinking about moving into the power void.

One last thought, fighting terrorism is necessary. How the fight is planned and carried out is crucial. I hope the next President knows what the job is and plots a course to accomplish it without years of misspent time, money and lives.